Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Git_Kraken]

These additions for the Hobarts are what really make me wonder about the magazine size, as well as the commentary about strike from RAN. I have no knowledge on what will be the mix the RAN choose, but let’s guess with a hypothetical load of about 16 TLAM, 10 SM-6, 14 SM-2 and 8 Quad packed ESSM cells. That’s decent, but IMO a little short for high intensity war fighting on the TLAM and long range SAM side, particularly given the inability to reload at sea. The problem is magnified for the Hunters with only 32 cells.

I think you would only arm Hobarts with a LAM of somesort in a permissive environment where AW is not going to be an issue. If I were the TG commander there is no way in hell I would want my AAW destroyers taking anything but ammo for AAW tasks. Let the LAM be launched by frigates. Land attack is a team sport. Hobarts got defence, let the forwards score the points.

 

[south]

I think you would only arm Hobarts with a LAM of somesort in a permissive environment where AW is not going to be an issue. If I were the TG commander there is no way in hell I would want my AAW destroyers taking anything but ammo for AAW tasks. Let the LAM be launched by frigates. Land attack is a team sport. Hobarts got defence, let the forwards score the points.

I’m not sure this assumption will always be able to be met. For one, if units are pulled from an established patrol to a TG they are unlikely to be able to go back and change the armament configuration. Not loading AWD with tomahawk inhibits their ability to rabidly react, an example being the Syria strike, where some USN destroyers launched 23 TLAM. Not loading TLAM to AWD significantly compromises the ability for the RAN to contribute adequate numbers of warheads to the Joint Force strategic strike capability.

Lastly, I expect the frigates will also have similar compromises, with full length VLS also taken up with similar loadout(s) of SM-2/(6?) etc; with the radar they are packing, along with Aegis they certainly should be.

 

[south]

I think it's a real dilemma, because if your Hobart is in range to shoot a Tomahawk salvo at a given target, it is also in range of any number of hostile anti-ship weapons lurking in the neighbourhood of said target (DF21/26, H6 + YJ100, DF100... etc.). Obviously you are going to deploy your Hobarts in a task force (ideally under cover of the USN, its airpower and that of the USAF/RAAF) using defence in depth to deny the bad guys their targeting data, but I still think there's likely to be a premium on those AAW weapons in a peer conflict.

It would be interesting to find out how much range you can get out of the SM6 when used in its MRC land-attack role. If it can rival the Tomahawk here as has been suggested elsewhere, it might prove to be a safer and more versatile weapon than the Tomahawk on the Hobarts, albeit at the expense of warhead mass.That way if it starts raining ASBMs you've still got interceptors ready to go, and if it's safe to do land attack or ASuW that option is there too.

I don’t really see SM-6 as a replacement for TLAM. It’s not going to have the same capabilities, or range. It certainly doesn’t have the same size warhead (64kg vs 454kg) and I doubt it has the same effects.

 

[swerve]

Yep, sad that RAN didn’t get it’s way reportedly, when it wanted the 64x cell equipped ‘Baby Burke’ but it’s what they have to live with, given they have little other option. ANZAC‘s have the current pathetic 8x cell VLS launcher and Hunter will be an upgrade on that, but will still have among the smallest VLS cell number of any modern fighting ship, weighing 10,000t or more in the world…

I do wonder who within ADF and RAN in particular envisages we need these massive, uber-expensive, high end fighting ships, but conversely such light armament to equip them?

Type 26 is expected to be a very good ASW platform indeed. Which navies have the biggest submarine fleets?

 

[south]

Type 26 is expected to be a very good ASW platform indeed. Which navies have the biggest submarine fleets?

This is all true, but there is no reason that a ~10 000 ton ship, costing lots of national treasure, with a kick ass radar, and AEGIS shouldn’t be adept at multiple missions, to include the ability to perform said missions simultaneously, or very nearly so.

 

[Boagrius]

I don’t really see SM-6 as a replacement for TLAM. It’s not going to have the same capabilities, or range. It certainly doesn’t have the same size warhead (64kg vs 454kg) and I doubt it has the same effects.

No doubt. On the range front I'm just not sure. The US seem to be using it in the same "MRC" range class as Tomahawk in the surface to surface role, so I do wonder how far it travels on a less energetically demanding ballistic trajectory. There is some precedent here in that PrSM is a smaller missile with a similar payload that already travels ~500km, with growth margin apparently beyond that.

 

[spoz]

WRT warship design parameters, upper deck space allocation is probably the real elephant in the room these days; each ship packs an awful lot of electronics, the aerials for all of which have to be placed on, or above, the upper deck. As there are normally mutual interference issues, their placement and the size of deck you need to place them on becomes a major design criteria. That's doubled when you're carrying a helo which has both electronics of its own which must not mutually interfere, and engine management systems etc plus warm bodies inside who need to be shielded from EMR during time on deck, take off and approach to the ship. It's a challenge.

As for the baby Burkes, we might have still been waiting for the ships if that design had been chosen.

The US seems to believe that 32 cells is enough for the FFG-62s which are ivo 7000 tons. They are not intended to operate under the umbrella of a TG all the time and they are probably not going to be as good an ASW platform as the Hunters. And as noted, the HCF is primarily an ASW platform to which we are adding a degree of AAW and ASuW capability - not the other way around.

 

[ASSAIL]

Last I checked the RN submarine fleet was the only non-USN user of the TLAM. Is it the plan for the Sub service to acquire TLAM?

A strike capability is planned. I don’t recall it being weapon specific.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Is a LAM capability something that is listed somewhere for the Hunter class? That may also be driving an acquisition program as well. Getting compatible munitions for the sub program with the surface fleet.

 

[ADMk2]

Type 26 is expected to be a very good ASW platform indeed. Which navies have the biggest submarine fleets?

I’ve no doubt it will be, that is it’s primary purpose, but numbers of VLS cells etc is primarily a budget decision, as seen recently with the T45’s that do have space reserved for additional strike length cells, but have opted for the cheaper soft-launch VLS for SeaCeptor. The mere fact we are putting AEGIS on these vessels and arming them with SM-2 / SM-6 shows they are intended to do far more than ASW…

I’m hoping the reserved space holds true for the Hunters (preferably fitted with of course…) because I’m really not sure in this day and age why we are buying 10,000t Destroyer sized vessels at an enormous premium and then arming them more lightly than in-service smaller vessels…

 

[ADMk2]

Is a LAM capability something that is listed somewhere for the Hunter class? That may also be driving an acquisition program as well. Getting compatible munitions for the sub program with the surface fleet.

Other than the sustainment program providing funding to explore a “possible” integration of Tactical Tomahawk Block IV into the AWD’s posted by me previously and Stingray just above, I’m not certain I have read any document from ADF indicating exactly where they intend to add “strategic strike” as they call it onto RAN platforms, only that they do intend to do so. The obvious only likely platforms are AWD, Hunters, Collins and Attack… I don’t even want to contemplate something like HIMARS etc firing from Adelaide Class decks given that even HIMARS seems to have been downgraded to “possible” now…

Previously it wasn’t weapon specific, some VLS variant of JASSM-ER could well be possible in addition to or as an alternative for TLAM and might well be attractive given some obvious overlap with LRASM, but there is actual funding being put towards a design solution for Tactical Tomahawk on AWD now in the budget papers, so I guess that partially at least answers that…

 

[Boagrius]

even HIMARS seems to have been downgraded to “possible” now…

Really? I thought LAND8113 was still a thing. Couldn't turn up much online but I imagine this guy knows the answer:

https://au.linkedin.com/in/john-mclean-6954124b

Just have to fight the urge to make Die Hard references...

EDIT: This is the most recent piece I could find on the subject. Language seems consistent with the MLRS program still being alive and kicking.

Accelerating Land Based Fires in the Australian Army

The modernisation and capability expansion of the Army’s artillery will result in a ubiquitous land-based capacity to blend kinetic multi-domain capabilities into a unified effect. The Australian Defence Force seeks to alleviate the burden on the

www.academia.edu

 

[Unric]

Getting back to what (if anything) can be done for the Anzacs, it's a bit left field but would it worth considering replacing the mk 45 with some vls? Not a nice choice since it's a very handy system especially with some promising new tech in the wings (and it might not even be feasible) but at the end of the day you can only do so much with 4000 tons.

 

[Unric]

Not sure that would really be feasible. While an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS might be able to fit into the space currently occupied by a Mk 45 gun aboard the FFH's, AFAIK the change would likely reduce the displacement and raise the vessel's CoG.

If it does save weight that might improve the chance of the second mk. 41 being installed in the space originally reserved (if that still exists). But I think chris73 is right. The Anzacs are pretty maxed out. I'm just trying to think laterally if you were desperate. CEAFAR seems a brilliant system to only be hooked up to 8 cells. Thank goodness for CEC. I reckon that's the real answer to making better use of the Anzacs.

 

[Bob53]

I’ve no doubt it will be, that is it’s primary purpose, but numbers of VLS cells etc is primarily a budget decision, as seen recently with the T45’s that do have space reserved for additional strike length cells, but have opted for the cheaper soft-launch VLS for SeaCeptor. The mere fact we are putting AEGIS on these vessels and arming them with SM-2 / SM-6 shows they are intended to do far more than ASW…

I’m hoping the reserved space holds true for the Hunters (preferably fitted with of course…) because I’m really not sure in this day and age why we are buying 10,000t Destroyer sized vessels at an enormous premium and then arming them more lightly than in-service smaller vessels…

Always had me scratching me head. A brief comparison...
Korean ships
Sejong Great 11000 ton 128 VLS cell + 16 X ASM
Chungmugong 5000 ton 64 X Mk41 + 8 Harppon + 21 X RIM 116

Japanese
Maya/Ashai 10000 ton 96 X Mk41, 8 X ASM
Kongo 9000 ton 90 X Mk41
Ashai 7000 ton 32 X Mk41

China
Type 52 7500 tons 64 X VLS
Type 54 4000 tons 32 Cells

Just seems we put so much in we can't for the cells in.

 

[t68]

Always had me scratching me head. A brief comparison...
Korean ships
Sejong Great 11000 ton 128 VLS cell + 16 X ASM
Chungmugong 5000 ton 64 X Mk41 + 8 Harppon + 21 X RIM 116

Japanese
Maya/Ashai 10000 ton 96 X Mk41, 8 X ASM
Kongo 9000 ton 90 X Mk41
Ashai 7000 ton 32 X Mk41

China
Type 52 7500 tons 64 X VLS
Type 54 4000 tons 32 Cells

Just seems we put so much in we can't for the cells in.

Size might have more to do with it
Sejong the Great class length- 165 m Beam- 21 m
Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class Length 150m Beam-17.4


Anzac class Length- 118 m Beam- 14.8 m

Sejong the Great Class Guided Missile Destroyer | Military-Today.com

Chungmugong Yi Sunshin Class / DDH-II Class Destroyer - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

Anzac Class Guided Missile Frigate | Military-Today.com

 

[Bob53]

Yes there is certainly a few larger ships there but they seem get get a lot more VLS into their ships that are of comparative size to our 7000 ton AWDs and 9000 ton Hunters.

 

[MickB]

Yes there is certainly a few larger ships there but they seem get get a lot more VLS into their ships that are of comparative size to our 7000 ton AWDs and 9000 ton Hunters.

A quick glance at things like range might help answer some of those.

 

[Boagrius]

How much would the mission bay on the Hunter affect the achievable VLS count? It's the one notable feature that eats into available volume that is absent on comparably sized vessels.

 

[Git_Kraken]

How much would the mission bay on the Hunter affect the achievable VLS count? It's the one notable feature that eats into available volume that is absent on comparably sized vessels.

CSC is placing 6 ExLS in the forward section of the mission bay. Given that measurement, you could probably fit another 8-16 VLS in that spot. Not entirely sure if they would be strike length, but that's not necessarily an issue if you are mixing ESSM into the loadout. ESSM would go in the mission bay spot where as foc'sle VLS would take the longer missiles.

There would be some engineering changes however as those VLS would be much higher above the waterline than ones flush with 1 deck. And you would need to re-design how the RHIB's are launched/recovered from the leftover space, as the mission bay is where they are normally located.