Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ddxx]

Other than that I would push the Hunters as quickly as possible within the constraints of a sustainable building program

That's a no brainer for sure. It's worth noting that the National Shipbuilding Plan and its inefficient drumbeat came out three years before the 2020 Strategic Update. According to Defence's site, there's an update due this year.

However, even if the Hunter program's drumbeat was reduced to a more efficient 12 months, we'd still only have 11 major surface combatants until 2039/2041 when the 9th Hunter and 12th surface combatant of the fleet arrives. That's accounting for the first 8 Hunters replacing the ANZAC class.

The RAN would still remain with only 11 surface combatants for the next twenty years.

That's the logic in the context of the strategic update for looking at additional options alongside the Hunter Class program.

 

[ngatimozart]

If the idea is to expand production at Henderson then a MOTS replacement for the LCHs is a start.
Plenty of existing designs to chose from.

If it is to increase combat power, them a small batch of lightly Australianised (CMS, radar, weapons and possibly engines) Mogami class could act as a powerful coastal defence force for Australia.
This would free up larger, longer ranged fleet units to operate in the expeditionary role.

Since both Australia and Japan use mostly US weapons not much should need to be changed in this regard.


One could even follow the other, the time taken for the LCH replacement build will allow the basic redesign of Mogami for Australian content.


Given its size the Mogamis could even be based in Cairns and Darwin.


Other than that I would push the Hunters as quickly as possible within the constraints of a sustainable building program.

Agreed per my earlier post. We need more amphibious logistics.

One other suggestion that may be heresy on a RAN thread…. if the issue is that we need more VLS as quickly as possible, do those “VLS” need to be on the water? Why not:
- acquire LCH / LST in significant numbers; and
- expand and accelerate the acquisition of HiMARS loaded with PrSM, LRASM and Patriot, accompanied by towed NASAMS / NSM batteries.

The potential extended range of PrSM out to 1000km+ now the US has left the INF is a real game changer and means a much larger area can be subject to denial.

This doesn’t need an LHD to show up every time to make this work. A capable fleet of LSTs would be just as useful in providing smaller dispersed groups of RAA with mobility and sustainment.

Time for some reality. How are you going to pay for all of this? Crew it? And where are you going to build it? What capabilities are you going to give up to get this, because you sure as hell will? I understand that there are capability issues, but decisions have been made and they are required to be acted upon expeditiously. So cease and desist from proposing fantasy fleets.

Some may argue that for the upcoming war an amphibious capability is not required, but more fighty ships. However I look at history and it has taught us that a Pacific wide war does require amphibious warfare capability and that is something that we should have. If there is a shortage of fighty ships, then the simplest solution is to increase the drumbeat and the number of Hunter Class frigates. You would also have to increase the size of the RAN, probably starting now and especially in the technical branches. That's definitely going to require more treasure.

WRT HiMARS and LRASM AFAIK LRASM is definitely not integrated onto HiMARS and it's too large. The same with NSM. They both have their own bespoke cannister launchers. NSM is definitely truck mounted and can be easily hidden. If you look at the new USMC concept of using hidden UGV mounted NSM in archipelagic locations within the Indo-Pacific region for A2AD, then that is something that the ADF could adapt for their own use. They remain under EMCON restrictions at all times so any potential enemies have no way of pinpointing there presence.

 

[oldsig127]

That's a no brainer for sure. It's worth noting that the National Shipbuilding Plan and its inefficient drumbeat came out three years before the 2020 Strategic Update. According to Defence's site, there's an update due this year.

However, even if the Hunter program's drumbeat was reduced to a more efficient 12 months, we'd still only have 11 major surface combatants until 2039/2041 when the 9th Hunter and 12th surface combatant of the fleet arrives. That's accounting for the first 8 Hunters replacing the ANZAC class.
.

How is a 12 month drumbeat "more efficient"? Faster, no doubt, but efficiency is not measured by speed. With a 12 month drumbeat we'll end up with either a valley of death and loss of most of the people building the ships. Not very efficient working people to death then when you need them, having to train new ones.

Not very efficient either if they just kept building more ships we couldn't crew. And so on.

I'm all for increasing the drum beat, but there are consequences and limits.

oldsig

 

[ddxx]

How is a 12 month drumbeat "more efficient"? Faster, no doubt, but efficiency is not measured by speed. With a 12 month drumbeat we'll end up with either a valley of death and loss of most of the people building the ships. Not very efficient working people to death then when you need them, having to train new ones.

Not very efficient either if they just kept building more ships we couldn't crew. And so on.

I'm all for increasing the drum beat, but there are consequences and limits.

oldsig

As discussed in this report by The Australian National University, the cost increase for the Hunter Program from $35b to ~$45b is largely due to the government pursuing a less efficient drumbeat. They're paying (a lot) more to build slower.

http://sdsc.bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/2021-07/centre-of-gravity-series-59-sea-5000-future-frigate-program.pdf

 

[oldsig127]

As discussed in this report by The Australian National University, the cost increase for the Hunter Program from $35b to ~$45b is largely due to the government pursuing a less efficient drumbeat.

http://sdsc.bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/2021-07/centre-of-gravity-series-59-sea-5000-future-frigate-program.pdf

Unfortunately I can't open it. However, can you tell me how they cost the dead time after finishing the Hunters and before starting the next project, or do they assume continuous builds on an assumption we'll find a buyer or double the size of the Navy to use them ourselves?

oldsig

 

[ddxx]

Unfortunately I can't open it. However, can you tell me how they cost the dead time after finishing the Hunters and before starting the next project, or do they assume continuous builds on an assumption we'll find a buyer or double the size of the Navy to use them ourselves?

oldsig

They recommend the following be considered:

"The Government review its decision to prioritise a slow continuous shipbuilding program over the strategic risk described in the Strategic Update 2020. Could SEA 5000 deliver capability at a significantly faster tempo and at a lower cost-per-unit if the Navy acquired more than 9 frigates, or built additional frigates for allies such as New Zealand?"

Noting that:

"The Strategic Update 2020 highlights Australia’s rapidly deteriorating strategic environment, yet the Government has deliberately structured the frigate program so that it delivers capability more slowly (extended to 2044) and at greater cost (an additional A$9.3 billion)."

 

[hauritz]

They recommend the following be considered:

"The Government review its decision to prioritise a slow continuous shipbuilding program over the strategic risk described in the Strategic Update 2020. Could SEA 5000 deliver capability at a significantly faster tempo and at a lower cost-per-unit if the Navy acquired more than 9 frigates, or built additional frigates for allies such as New Zealand?"

Noting that:

"The Strategic Update 2020 highlights Australia’s rapidly deteriorating strategic environment, yet the Government has deliberately structured the frigate program so that it delivers capability more slowly (extended to 2044) and at greater cost (an additional A$9.3 billion)."

$9.3 B is a lot of money. If that number is correct we should seriously consider building new ships as efficiently as possible and selling off our excess stock at bargain basement prices. I have no idea what that drumbeat would be but $9.3B represents 2 extra ships.

Even if we gave a couple of ships to New Zealand we would be no worse off financially.

 

[alexsa]

$9.3 B is a lot of money. If that number is correct we should seriously consider building new ships as efficiently as possible and selling off our excess stock at bargain basement prices. I have no idea what that drumbeat would be but $9.3B represents 2 extra ships.

Even if we gave a couple of ships to New Zealand we would be no worse off financially.

Can we please reflect on why the 18 month drumbeat was selected. It was to ensure we maintained the capability (equipment, facilities and trained workers) to build ships on an ongoing basis. Defence have noted the yard can punch ships out at a faster pace and undertake other projects but .... what the want to avoid is the extraordinary amount of time and cost re-establishing that capability when we let it die for a lack of work. Part of the delay in the Hunter is the need to build this skills and the reason two OPV's are being built at Osbourne is to retain them.

I note the author provides little evidence to back up his estimate. Comparing costs between the FFG62, the T26 and the Hunter is fraught with danger as we do not know what is included in that costing of each. The Australian costing includes whole of life, support facilities and a new ship yard and associated training systems. The author's only suggestion is to build more ships for others but get ours done quick. If the orders don't come in then we face another hiatus which will have a significant cost. If we do get orders ... all good and them the building rate can be adjusted.

Warning for those hunting around for other hulls. A new project will not see the light of day built in Australia for at least 4 years (and that would a miracle) as there is nowhere to build them unless you push the Hunter back. It is not just the shed, it is the logistics chain and the trained and competent workers . Building them overseas removes the establishment of a logistics support mechanism and make Australia reliant on others.

We are in fantasy fleet world folks and the sense of humour of some of the Mods is waning.

 

[alexsa]

As a coincidence our current 5 inch gun and a loaded Mk 41 with ESSM are ruffly about the same weight and foot print both above and below deck.

Makes for an interesting choice for the Anzac Class.

With limited real estate what our the priorities?

As to a small / medium cal weapon I'd suggest they will always have a place.

The 57 mm and VLS forward may be a weight/space challenge.
The lighter 40 mm Leonardo as used on the Arafura class would probably be achievable mounted just forward of a VLS replacing the current 5 inch cannon.

The much lighter Sea Ceptor missile and launcher also have appeal.

Regards S

Happy to be corrected but the magazine for the 127m is set well down in the hull which does provide weight below the CoG with the hoist gear and projectiles (when filled). The Mk41 will carry the missile and launcher weight higher than that. Without having access to the stability data it is not possible to work out the implications but I don't thinks it is like for like.

If defence are looking at this they 'may' have a solution which may mean a bit more ballast or changes to the upper works or .... god forbid.... hull bulges. Just speculating but it will be interesting to see what they come up with if this is the intent.

 

[Captain Matchbox]

When I was on the commissioning crew of Arunta in 98 I seem to remember the mk41 was tactical length so can take everything except tomahawk, at the time there was talk about when not if the second 8 cell would be added and that future upgrades could include additional cells (8 or 16) forward of the bridge into what was the map room. That’s my recollection but 23 years on I’ve had a couple of light beer shandies since then.

 

[alexsa]

"For instance" is what I said. Presumably if you are lobbing 5inch shells over 100km ( or far less without ER ammo) on to hostile targets, that hostile might have something to shoot back with...What NGS scenario do you suggest we should be preparing for?

Can we please have a realistic discussion... oldsig127 is making a good point. The gun on the ANZAC is there for a reason. It provides NGS and AA as well as anti-surface. You would do well to remember it has been used in anger in a combat situation for NGS

Five Inch Friday | Defence Forum & Military Photos - DefenceTalk

Not every target needs to be dealt with by a missile.

alexsa

 

[vonnoobie]

"For instance" is what I said. Presumably if you are lobbing 5inch shells over 100km ( or far less without ER ammo) on to hostile targets, that hostile might have something to shoot back with...What NGS scenario do you suggest we should be preparing for?

All of them hence requirement for ships to have an NGS and VLS. Here is another way to put it, Anzac class has the ESSM so good self defence.. Some one shoots a missile at you.. you defeat said missile... then what? Just keep throwing up ESSM against all launches or do you use that 127mm to your front to lob a few guided round down onto the launcher position and knock that sucker out.

At end of the day most everyone has the ability to shoot back, You need a range of capabilities to meet all threats and not become a one trick pony. Hell even having superior numbers and systems doesnt always ensure a win. Look at the MC02 war game (Millenium Challange 2002). Forces where comparable to Iran/Iraq of the time and the US, General leading the Red forces (Iran/Iraq depending on who you ask) made mince meat of the US forces not relying on modern tech but rather going old school mixed with assymetric warfare. First salvo destroyed a carrier, 10 cruisers and 5 amphibious warfare ships... Superior ships and yet if was real they would have suffered the worst naval defeat since the attack on Pearl Harbour if not in the history of the USN.

Naval gun might seem old school but old school can do wonders, Even those grumpy mod's on here old as they are can be useful

 

[Richo99]

Can we please have a realistic discussion... oldsig127 is making a good point. The gun on the ANZAC is there for a reason. It provides NGS and AA as well as anti-surface. You would do well to remember it has been used in anger in a combat situation for NGS

Five Inch Friday | Defence Forum & Military Photos - DefenceTalk

Not every target needs to be dealt with by a missile.

alexsa

Some final comments before my self imposed holiday from this forum...

1) What's unrealistic about it....the French Navy no longer has anything larger than 76mm (though I will concede a carrier full of Rafales does provide a pretty effective alternative to the loss of effective NGS).

2) 5 inch friday....yes it happened.

Almost 50 years since the end of our involvement in the Vietnam War, over 20 years of recent wars and peacekeeping missions. And in that time ...1 Friday of NGS. 46 individual rounds in 50 years. And over that period, the RAN has generally maintained a dozen 4.5 or 5inch guns to provide that capability.

I know the same could be said of many latent capabilities in the RAN, and broader ADF, but the question I originally posed was essentially, is there a better use for the space and weight allocated to a large gun

3) Not concerned about the effectiveness of land based AShM and the threat they pose to ships on the gun line? Maybe we shouldn't be investing in them ourselves in that case.

4) At a max rate of fire of only 20rpm, suggesting the five inch gun has any realistic anti aircraft capability (unless guided mubitions are provided) in modern warfare is, optomistic at best and disingenuous at worst.

 

[alexsa]

Some final comments before my self imposed holiday from this forum...

1) What's unrealistic about it....the French Navy no longer has anything larger than 76mm (though I will concede a carrier full of Rafales does provide a pretty effective alternative to the loss of effective NGS).

2) 5 inch friday....yes it happened.

Almost 50 years since the end of our involvement in the Vietnam War, over 20 years of recent wars and peacekeeping missions. And in that time ...1 Friday of NGS. 46 individual rounds in 50 years. And over that period, the RAN has generally maintained a dozen 4.5 or 5inch guns to provide that capability.

I know the same could be said of many latent capabilities in the RAN, and broader ADF, but the question I originally posed was essentially, is there a better use for the space and weight allocated to a large gun

3) Not concerned about the effectiveness of land based AShM and the threat they pose to ships on the gun line? Maybe we shouldn't be investing in them ourselves in that case.

4) At a max rate of fire of only 20rpm, suggesting the five inch gun has any realistic anti aircraft capability (unless guided mubitions are provided) in modern warfare is, optomistic at best and disingenuous at worst.

Noted, in response

• 5 inch Friday occurred in a situation where AShM were a risk and where there was considerable air power available. It was still necessary. I do not underestimate the AShM risk and note the upgrade to the ANZACs reflect this is a real risk.
• Yes the rate of fire is slower than the older 5" guns the CF Adams DDG's but improved fire control and fusing still provides an AA capability. Smart munitions will help further.

 

[icelord]

You cannot just remove the harpoons and install VLS. There are compartments below on both decks. Thinking back to what is in that flat, theres nowhere for it to go. VLS would go down 2 decks where Forward repair is. That doesnt exactly move to easily for Damage Control. Not sure how much is public knowledge on the layouts but those compartments cannot be shifted without major changes to the ship and thats before we get into weight on the Forward sections.

No more VLS for Anzacs and mlno more talk of it. They are heavy enough and RAN would be wasting money for no return. Anzacs are sufficient at their current levels with the upgraded masts installation nd electronic suites. Considering they are the most up armed Meko 200 in the world, dont think they need more.

 

[spoz]

There is also the question of maximum allowable displacement. That is not a function of stability (which of course is important in itself) but of the girder strength of the hull and its ability to accept hogging and sagging forces. I’m not sure how close the ANZACs might now be to that, but given the changes already to the baseline ship as constructed it would seem likely to be an issue which would have to be considered in any further upgrade. Reserve of buoyancy might also again become an issue and it would seem most of the options there have been exhausted.

Some of the previous discussion would sound a bit like the maritime equivalent of a quart in a pint pot.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

As of today we only have 3types of hull made in Australia
Arafuras, evolved and guardian
If you fight the next war with what you have not what you wish for,
Could any of the aforementioned missiles be retrofitted to those hulls ?
Time is quickening

 

[ngatimozart]

As of today we only have 3types of hull made in Australia
Arafuras, evolved and guardian
If you fight the next war with what you have not what you wish for,
Could any of the aforementioned missiles be retrofitted to those hulls ?
Time is quickening

Short answer no. Read back through the thread to the reasons why. It's been well covered and thrashed to death. It's a subject that the Moderators do not wish to be resuscitated.

 

[Massive]

Short answer no.

The longer answer is more likely that if you want a corvette-size surface combatant then that is what you should build if you can afford it and man it.

Probably need to start with what the role of these surface combatants would be.

I feel that if going down this path it would look something like an A-100 corvette armed largely for but not with outside of main & secondary guns.

More generally, a lot of posters are essentially implying that a more flexible design than the Arafura should have been chosen.

Regards,

Massive

 

[DDG38]

Oh look, the RAN still training on how to conduct NGS. Fancy that.
"HMAS Anzac fires her 5 inch main gun while conducting a gunnery serial during Exercise Western Shield, off the coast of Lancelin Training Area, Western Australia." Image source - ADF Image Library