Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Richo99]

Given the author of the article has heavy involvement with various Defence industry companies and roles being a political staffer, this article just smells of barrow pushing to get the government to over arm vessels that have no need to be. The Attacks, Fremantles and Armidales did not carry a helo or ASMs. Because it's not part of their CONOPs. I know it's a Murdoch rag but jeezus.

Having said that, removal of the helicopter capable flight deck, for what appears to be a modest $$$ saving, seems crazy.

And the argument that helos are not part of the conops doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned...anorher example: STOVL ops aren't foreseen from the LHDs, but they have retained the ski jump. The potential is retained for no real disbenefit.

 

[John Newman]

And the argument that helos are not part of the conops doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned...anorher example: STOVL ops aren't foreseen from the LHDs, but they have retained the ski jump. The potential is retained for no real disbenefit.

The discussion regarding the ski jump on the LHDs has gone around the mill here many, many times before.

Why was it retained? Unlike a number of ‘flat top’ designs that have had a ski jump added to that flat deck, the ski jump on the LHDs are a structural component of the bow and there would have been an additional cost in time and money to re design and delete.

Will the ski jump ever be used? Probably not, does it matter if it’s there or not? Probably not.

I think the LHDs with or without a ski jump is a bit of a non issue, just my opinion of course.

 

[Richo99]

In fact there is more chance of a romeo or taipan landing on an Arafura than an f35 launching from an LHD, yet they have removed the capability to save the cost of a Big Mac. Defies logic in my opinion.

 

[John Newman]

If the future security of Australia came down to the difference between a fleet of appropriately armed and equipped OPVs or a fleet of OCVs on steroids armed to the teeth, then I think we should all start practicing putting our arms up and saying ‘I surrender’!

Again, just my opinion, but I think the OPVs will be more than capable for the role they are intended for.

If we need something with more ‘teeth’ that sits between the OPV and DDG/FFG fleets in their respective roles, then maybe it would be better being filled with a more appropriate ship design. To me that would end up being something like a Damen Sigma class Corvette design.

Can I see that happening? No I can’t (budget, manpower, etc), but if the need arose I think they would provide a more appropriate capability to operate in a combat role in our near north.

Cheers,

 

[spoz]

As JN says they will be perfectly adequate for the task for which the Government of the day has acquired them - enforcing our laws in our EEZ. They are not being acquired as anything other than OPVs, not combatants. Sure they can perform some other tasks, but that is not why they are being acquired!

And if you think that was a Navy decision, then you are kidding yourself. Up to about 45 years ago Navy made recommendations on equipment procurements in their domain to Government (as did the other Services) but since 1975 that has been a Defence Department, not a Navy, role - and these days in a procurement such as the OPVs, the DoD decision is subject to comment and agreement by a whole bunch of other Government departments. If you’ve ever had to fight a procurement up through the process you will know that the final answer often undergoes great change from where it originally began - even before it gets out of DoD who have the responsibility for balancing all proposed procurements against the dollars available.

(BTW, I have no inside info on the OPV decision, so I have no idea how much development the requirement set may have undergone before the Luerssen PV 80 and its equipment outfit were chosen and what trade offs, if any, may have been necessary)

 

[ngatimozart]

This OPV uparming discussion has been thrashed to death before and nothing has changed apart from the Chinese problem. It's obvious that the OPV's are not combat capable and no matter how many Fosters beers certain posters drink,that isn't going to change a thing. As JN and Spoz, amongst others have said, they are designed for a constabulary role; not to do a Horatio Nelson and sail into the midst of an enemy fleet decimating it. The sooner that you understand that, the better.

 

[John Newman]

On a slightly different note.....

I was down at Potts Point late last week (and no I wasn’t at a rub’n’tug in the Cross), and I decided to have a drive by of FBE.

All three of the Hobart DDGs were in, two tied up side by side and one tied up on its own, with an Anzac FFH sandwiched in between.

Close up and in the flesh they are big girls, very very big girls indeed.

It will be interesting to eventually see one of the DDGs and a Hunter FFG together.

Cheers,

 

[DDG38]

Less "coulda woulda shoulda" paper fleet discussions, more warries at sea doing warrie shit.
"HMA Ships Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney sail in formation for the first time through the Eastern Australian Exercise Area off the coast of New South Wales, Australia." (Image source : ADF Image Library linky)

 

[John Newman]

Less "coulda woulda shoulda" paper fleet discussions, more warries at sea doing warrie shit.
"HMA Ships Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney sail in formation for the first time through the Eastern Australian Exercise Area off the coast of New South Wales, Australia." (Image source : ADF Image Library linky)
View attachment 47869

As they say in poker, “I’ll see your photo and raise you a video”

Good to see all three operating side by side. That photo reminds me of a photo I saw many many decades ago of the three Perth class DDGs together:

perth class destroyer - Google Search

www.google.com.au

I still think it’s a bit sad that one of them couldn’t have been saved and kept as a museum ship (and yes I know it cost a shed load of money to maintain them).

Cheers,

 

[DDG38]

I still think it’s a bit sad that one of them couldn’t have been saved and kept as a museum ship (and yes I know it cost a shed load of money to maintain them).

They are museum ships, you just need a wetsuit and scuba gear to see them

 

[John Newman]

They are museum ships, you just need a wetsuit and scuba gear to see them

True..... but I ain’t going down there with all the Noah’s Arks swimming around!

No thanks!!

 

[ASSAIL]

Good to see all three operating side by side. That photo reminds me of a photo I saw many many decades ago of the three Perth class DDGs together:

perth class destroyer - Google Search

www.google.com.au

I know I’m showing my age folks but these are what “real” DDGs look like!
Been there, done that, got hearing loss to prove it.

 

[ADMk2]

Less "coulda woulda shoulda" paper fleet discussions, more warries at sea doing warrie shit.
"HMA Ships Hobart, Brisbane and Sydney sail in formation for the first time through the Eastern Australian Exercise Area off the coast of New South Wales, Australia." (Image source : ADF Image Library linky)
View attachment 47869

On that note, I see RAN’s interest in moving at absolute glacial pace towards new generation weapons to arm these new generation ships, being a tad bizarre. They are effectively armed for major warfighting roles, exactly the same as the generation of ships that preceeded them (FFG’s with Phalanx, ESSM, SM-2, Harpoon and MU-90) yet we have identified an urgent need to increase our air to air weapons capability, with advanced AMRAAM variants being acquired for RAAF, and an urgent need to improve our maritime strike capability with much heralding, by buying new long ranged ASM’s...

Yet our navy, that will be performing many of the same missions (air defence and maritime strike roles) is seemingly content with the previous generation of weapons for years to come? I accept there are plans to acquire new generation weapons for the fleet eventually, there just isn’t any apparent urgency, as opposed to the urgency seen for the RAAF?

One hopes that is testament to the efficacy of those weapons, rather than any laxness on behalf of Navy...

 

[John Newman]

I know I’m showing my age folks but these are what “real” DDGs look like!
Been there, done that, got hearing loss to prove it.

Agree what you’ve said about the DDGs, they looked fast even standing still!

My first memory of the Perth class DDGs was from a booklet that my Grandparents had brought back with them from a trip to the AWM in Canberra. It was produced for the RAN golden julbilee, 1911-1961:

https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/RAN_1911-1961_opt.pdf

The booklet was given to me in the mid 60s and I’ve still got it in a box somewhere. At the time of publication only two had been ordered.

Cheers,

 

[spoz]

Re missile currency. The current incarnations of ESSM and SM2 are certainly not the previous generation of weapons, and there are continuous programs in place to remain current. For open source, see for example Australia is getting the long-range missiles needed for a contested Indo-Pacific | The Strategist

Oh, and see my previous post on who decides such things.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would expect an announcement on Australia getting Block II ESSM next year. As the development is finished and the US is integrating it now. It really is just time frames we are waiting for.

Missile upgrade will boost Navy protection | Defence News

Royal Australian Navy warships will be better protected against the threat of anti-ship missiles following a decision that opens the way to equip the ships with an upgraded version of the Evolved Seasparrow missile system, the Minister for Defence, Senator David Johnston, announced today.

news.defence.gov.au

They may wait for the Aegis update and integrate everything with that, which should occur around 2023. Sm-6, ESSM blk2 and NSM (would seem likely eventually). They already are operating the latest SM-2 Blk IIIB's.

IMO I really like the Hobart class, I think they a lovely looking ships. Its very pleasing to see that capability in the RAN today. Would have been nice to be making another one or two right about now.

But I see they have started to prototype Hunter build blocks.

Right on time: Hunter Class frigate prototyping kickstarts next phase

In a major milestone for Australia’s largest surface shipbuilding program, BAE Systems Australia has announced the beginning of prototyping on the Royal Australian Navy’s multibillion-dollar Hunter Class frigate fleet.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

 

[CB90]

I would expect an announcement on Australia getting Block II ESSM next year. As the development is finished and the US is integrating it now. It really is just time frames we are waiting for.

Missile upgrade will boost Navy protection | Defence News

Royal Australian Navy warships will be better protected against the threat of anti-ship missiles following a decision that opens the way to equip the ships with an upgraded version of the Evolved Seasparrow missile system, the Minister for Defence, Senator David Johnston, announced today.

news.defence.gov.au

They may wait for the Aegis update and integrate everything with that, which should occur around 2023. Sm-6, ESSM blk2 and NSM (would seem likely eventually). They already are operating the latest SM-2 Blk IIIB's.

IMO I really like the Hobart class, I think they a lovely looking ships. Its very pleasing to see that capability in the RAN today. Would have been nice to be making another one or two right about now.

But I see they have started to prototype Hunter build blocks.

Right on time: Hunter Class frigate prototyping kickstarts next phase

In a major milestone for Australia’s largest surface shipbuilding program, BAE Systems Australia has announced the beginning of prototyping on the Royal Australian Navy’s multibillion-dollar Hunter Class frigate fleet.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

It is. Phase 6 makes the leap to new generation of missiles worthwhile. Less relevant for the Harpoon replacement but it is very important to keep the combat system and Air Defense missiles in sync.

 

[ASSAIL]

APDR reports that the first steel has been cut for the “prototyping” phase of the Hunter Class build.
9 prototype blocks will be built in order to test design and construction of the Hunters and first steel will be cut for production in 2023.

Steel cutting marks milestone for Hunter Class Frigate - APDR

 

[Takao]

On that note, I see RAN’s interest in moving at absolute glacial pace towards new generation weapons to arm these new generation ships, being a tad bizarre. They are effectively armed for major warfighting roles, exactly the same as the generation of ships that preceeded them (FFG’s with Phalanx, ESSM, SM-2, Harpoon and MU-90) yet we have identified an urgent need to increase our air to air weapons capability, with advanced AMRAAM variants being acquired for RAAF, and an urgent need to improve our maritime strike capability with much heralding, by buying new long ranged ASM’s...

Yet our navy, that will be performing many of the same missions (air defence and maritime strike roles) is seemingly content with the previous generation of weapons for years to come? I accept there are plans to acquire new generation weapons for the fleet eventually, there just isn’t any apparent urgency, as opposed to the urgency seen for the RAAF?

One hopes that is testament to the efficacy of those weapons, rather than any laxness on behalf of Navy...

I'd point out two things:

1 - the current SM-2 doesn't resemble the SM-2 of 10 years ago. As is also the case with most of the other munitions the RAN uses.

2 - As the FSP shows, there are billions being put into RAN specific guided weapons ($16 - 24 b) over the next 20 years. That's in addition to the land attack missile, any money that can be shared between other domains and the RAN (ie, long-range missiles for Army can have a shared platform) and the $20 - 30 b being put into weapons inventories. The RAN has a massive budget for guided weapons, with lots of support from other areas.

Beyond those two points, I'd also point out that the networks between Joint Force platforms provides additional opportunities and C2 for JTFs - so a Hobart could launch an SM-2 over the radar horizon through the guidance of an E-7. That could never have happened with the Perth's (as much as I love them) or even in 2010.

 

[Boagrius]

a Hobart could launch an SM-2 over the radar horizon through the guidance of an E-7.

So this is something that is being pursued? I know this kind of cooperative engagement capability was being developed for the E2D/Aegis pairing, but wasn't sure if the E7 could provide targeting data of sufficient quality for missile cueing. You have to wonder if similar CEC opportunities exist with Poseidon and F35A.

With this in mind, SM6 ought to be a game changer. That leaves the Harpoon replacement, which IMO would be better filled by a deck mounted, box launched LRASM. Impressive as NSM is, it falls well short of the pacing threat (YJ18 and YJ100) in terms of both range and warhead weight.