Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

Would there be any significance to the USS Frank Cable (LA class sub tender) visiting at this point in our quest to acquire SSN's, other than a routine friendly port visit?

If we are talking about supporting SSN in our region, its a logical point to be be looking at. Australia could also be looking at offering such a capability in the future as a ship (either for SSN or our Collins). Also supporting US sub tenders would also be logical from Australia. I wouldn't read too much into it, but reasonable for a ship like that to visit given our current discussions, I am sure there would be genuine interest of how the ship is configured and operates.

Beyond that, Sydney is great port, US sailors are always very happy to port here, given its not a particularly common spot for them. IMO We would should pretty much have a continuous schedule of US ships port visiting Australia.

 

[Going Boeing]

Good day all

The discussion on number of ships, weapons, hull speed and crew increases are all important issues..... and deserve to be explored. If solutions are to be suggested then there needs to be some justification for that. Suggestions such as simply adding another MT30 (without some sort of reasoned assessment of the impact of such a change) or essentially doubling the fleet size (without considering all the cost and crew implications) gets frustrating after a while.

As an example ... looking at the Hunter class we should note:
1. We are not privy to the design changes that have been made in the public domain so some of the issues may have been resolved y tweaks to the design.
2. Simply adding an MT30 is not simple ..... it is a significant change to the arrangement of the vessel internally and would be a very significant redesign of the ship overall. Hull speed is not simply a matter of adding more power (which in a displacement hull has a diminishing return as speed increases) but relies on the design of the hull and its hydrodynamic efficiency. Adding another MT30 may simply add weight, reduce growth capacity and reduce range for no significant increase in speed.
3. Increasing length (hull plug) may increase speed with no increase in power as it may improve the longtitudinal stability (directional stability) of the vessel, however, it is still not a minor change and would also be a significant redesign. It may be beneficial but it is not simple.
4. Is the extra two to three knots worth it? These are escorts to support a task group which will be limited by the speed of the main body. 27 knots may be sufficient.

A little more careful consideration will mitigate some of the frustration.

alexsa

You make some good point, alexsa but, the discussion on fitting an extra MT-30 was an extension of thought processes following leaks that indicate the Type 26 design size is being increased to close to 10,000 tonnes to accommodate the systems required in the Hunter class. This increase is most probably as a result of a hull plug which creates space for increased fuel storage, and possibly an extra MT-30. You are correct in that we have very little information about the design changes but, we can reliably assume that they are planning for growth/upgrades throughout the life of the vessels so having an excess of power would suit mounting future capabilities such as Laser weapons, etc.

 

[cdxbow]

HOBART and ANZAC class ships will have NSM delivery's sped up to 2024
We shall also receive new sea mines in 2024.
The RAAF will also receive Long range missile's early for the RAAF F-18 fleet ,delivery's to begin in 2024.
Def Min Mr Dutton will make the announcement today
Stand by !

Australia to acquire new strike weapons early (msn.com)

Raytheon and LM have been named as strategic partners for the Commonwealths sovereign guided weapons capability

Australian government names Raytheon, Lockheed as strategic partners in guided weapons - APDR (asiapacificdefencereporter.com)

I just would like to check my understanding. The missiles referred to for the SH are the LRASM on order, but brought forward? IIRC that was for 200 missiles.
The NSM will be a deck launched replacement for the Harpoon? The number currently is unspecified.
Tomahawk - proposed acquisitions have so far only been for land attack type and there has been no change in that.

Once the acquisition of these is complete, the ADF inventory of anti-ship missiles would be:
LRASM 200
Harpoon 400
NSM - ???? but probably 200 or more (11 major combatants, 8 missiles per ship, 88 to fully load all ships)

 

[Going Boeing]

Once the acquisition of these is complete, the ADF inventory of anti-ship missiles would be:
LRASM 200
Harpoon 400
NSM - ???? but probably 200 or more (11 major combatants, 8 missiles per ship, 88 to fully load all ships)

In addition, the plan is to order the Joint Strike Missile (a version of the NSM) for the F35 (internal) as well as probably arming the F/A-18F’s & P8’s.

My understanding of the Tomahawk order is that it will be the latest version which has dual land & anti shipping capability thus having a lot more flexibility.

 

[spoz]

Hull "plugs" in warships are not nearly as simple as they are in commercial ships where, admittedly, they are reasonably common if still a challenge to the naval architects who design them, the shipyards who is execute tehm, and the classification society who must approve them. But there it is relatively simple compared to the much greater issues in a warship which is designed for actively non benign conditions. @alexsa is correct in how much of challenge that would be, not least to the girder strength of the hull of any combattant

So far as is known, no plug to lengthen the hull is under consideration for the HCF. There is little point in speculating what might go into an option for which there is no indication of official, or even informed unofficial, endorsement.

 

[Flexson]

You make some good point, alexsa but, the discussion on fitting an extra MT-30 was an extension of thought processes following leaks that indicate the Type 26 design size is being increased to close to 10,000 tonnes to accommodate the systems required in the Hunter class. This increase is most probably as a result of a hull plug which creates space for increased fuel storage, and possibly an extra MT-30. You are correct in that we have very little information about the design changes but, we can reliably assume that they are planning for growth/upgrades throughout the life of the vessels so having an excess of power would suit mounting future capabilities such as Laser weapons, etc.

It has already been mentioned in this thread that the increase in displacement is being handled by bulging the hull, not by a hull plug increasing length.

 

[ADMk2]

In addition, the plan is to order the Joint Strike Missile (a version of the NSM) for the F35 (internal) as well as probably arming the F/A-18F’s & P8’s.

My understanding of the Tomahawk order is that it will be the latest version which has dual land & anti shipping capability thus having a lot more flexibility.

I am not sure the decision has been made to acquire JSM for the F-35 as yet. It is certainly speculated that is the case, but it hasn’t been confirmed to my knowledge?

Whilst the specific model has yet to be announced, as well as quantities or how RAN intends to employ them (numbers per ship, Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System integration and so on) we do know that RAN has been directed to integrate Tactical Tomahawk Block IV onto the AWD’s and is funded to do so under sustainment project CN40, CN60 and SEA 1300.

(Source - Portfolio Budget Statements, 2022-2023 - top 30 sustainment projects, page - 118).

I’ve not seen any official source on acquiring Tactical Tomahawk Block Va/Vb for the RAN or ADF more broadly.

 

[ADMk2]

I just would like to check my understanding. The missiles referred to for the SH are the LRASM on order, but brought forward? IIRC that was for 200 missiles.
The NSM will be a deck launched replacement for the Harpoon? The number currently is unspecified.
Tomahawk - proposed acquisitions have so far only been for land attack type and there has been no change in that.

Once the acquisition of these is complete, the ADF inventory of anti-ship missiles would be:
LRASM 200
Harpoon 400
NSM - ???? but probably 200 or more (11 major combatants, 8 missiles per ship, 88 to fully load all ships)

‘Maybe’. The JASSM-ER can also be equipped with the maritime attack capability of the LRASM, as the USN is purchasing. RAAF may well decide this variant offering the flexibility of land attack or maritime strike in a single weapon is it’s preferred option. How much capability overlap there would be there with LRASM is therefore unclear, but clearly there is some.

Once again, as with Tomahawk and even NSM (standard NSM or NSM Block IA?) there is zero detail on the specifics of the weapons ADF are acquiring at this time…

Cruise Missile Variant Of Navy's JSOW Glide Bomb Is On The Chopping Block

The powered JSOW variant had been intended, in part, as a long-range stand-off weapon that the Navy's F-35Cs could still carry internally.

www.thedrive.com

 

[StingrayOZ]

I’ve not seen any official source on acquiring Tactical Tomahawk Block Va/Vb for the RAN or ADF more broadly.

Australia to pursue nuclear-powered submarines through new trilateral enhanced security partnership | Prime Minister of Australia

www.pm.gov.au

Throughout the decade, Australia will rapidly acquire long-range strike capabilities to enhance the ADF’s ability to deliver strike effects across our air, land and maritime domains.

These include:

• Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, to be fielded on our Hobart class destroyers, enabling our maritime assets to strike land targets at greater distances, with better precision.
• Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (Extended Range) will enable our F-A-18F Super Hornets and in future, our F-35A Lightning II, to hit targets at a range of 900km.
• Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles (Extended Range) (LRASM) for the F/A-18F Super Hornet.

edit: Oh I see, more broadly than the AWD... I think the only indication is the opposition announcement about subs and collins as something they would look at.

NSM/JSM are TBA.. Logical, but TBA.

Don't think JSM will be on the P8. Also would be only on platforms intergrated for it.

 

[hauritz]

Probably worth mentioning that the British are always pretty cagey about how fast their ships will really go. I remember HMS Queen Elizabeth was originally touted as having a top speed of around 25 knots but it can actually achieve 32 knots. The Type 45 was initially designed to travel at 28 knots can in fact travel faster than 30 knots.

The British also claim a speed of in excess of 26 knots for their version of the Type 26 while Australia has claimed that it will travel in excess of 27 knots. In other words I wouldn't get too wrapped up in reported speeds.

I am not sure how much speed will be lost as a result of modifications but it wouldn't surprise me if its top speed was still in excess of 27 knots.

 

[Redlands18]

I just would like to check my understanding. The missiles referred to for the SH are the LRASM on order, but brought forward? IIRC that was for 200 missiles.
The NSM will be a deck launched replacement for the Harpoon? The number currently is unspecified.
Tomahawk - proposed acquisitions have so far only been for land attack type and there has been no change in that.

Once the acquisition of these is complete, the ADF inventory of anti-ship missiles would be:
LRASM 200
Harpoon 400
NSM - ???? but probably 200 or more (11 major combatants, 8 missiles per ship, 88 to fully load all ships)

Isn't the NSM going to eventually replace the Harpoon, Can't see a lot of sense in retaining both.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Isn't the NSM going to eventually replace the Harpoon, Can't see a lot of sense in retaining both.

Harpoon going forward is likely to see it fall out of service.
However, there are huge stocks and its integrated on almost everything.

NSM and LRASM are logical replacements for harpoons. NSM is smaller, stealthier, only a slight improvement in range. LRASM is much larger, much longer ranged, much smarter. LRASM is much bigger and heavier than harpoon, so not a 1 to 1 replacement for box launched harpoon. NSM is smaller and lighter and is boxed launched.

NSM can be helicopter launched replacing penguin.

SAS 2019: Kongsberg pitching NSM-HL missile for maritime helicopter - Naval News

Kongsberg is actively pitching its helicopter-launched variant of the Naval Strike Missile, officially dubbed NSM-HL. According to Kongsberg, the NSM-HL missile is designed « to fill the role as a long-range, anti-ship missile for helicopter launch, thus increasing the parent ship’s potential...

www.navalnews.com

With the P8, a weapon station is used if you carry LRASM or JSM, so you might as well go the big guy, and off that platform he could be cued by sensors far away. JSM can fit internally into the F-35A so that is useful, but its not yet integrated for it. NSM/JSM is weak against harden land targets, or very large ships, with a much smaller warhead. But a F-35A can be completely clean with a long range maritime strike, and air missiles.

LRASM is integrated for the F-18 SH, and being integrated for the F-35 and P8.
JSM isn't integrated on the F-35 yet, it is ongoing. IMO there is no rush to buy a missile that isn't yet integrated on a platform to fire it. P8 and other aircraft are on a list behind that and may require more funding etc.

Tomahawk - proposed acquisitions have so far only been for land attack type and there has been no change in that.

I think the ADF wants to keep the missions clear for each missile. Modern TLAM can do both. However, IMO TLAM is not an ideal maritime strike weapon, particularly against aware peer threats, its still signature and aerodynamic wise, much the same old missile. But first strike land attack, range and payload a strong, its the mission it excels at.

 

[Massive]

A GP Frigate program to fill the Force Structure’s glaring omission of a mid-tier combatant needs fast and serious discussion, exploration and action.

Even if Hunter’s drumbeat was 12 months, the RAN would remain an 11 combatant navy for almost the next 20 years.

If a class of 6-8 GP frigates were to be acquired, would trading some of the Hunters (to say 6) for a class of 2 small escort carriers be justified (~30-40,000 tonnes)?

To be clear I am referring to dedicated escort carriers (as opposed to putting F35s on the LHDs for instance, which has been clearly discredited as a viable option).

Regards,

Massive

 

[Wombat000]

If a class of 6-8 GP frigates were to be acquired, would trading some of the Hunters (to say 6) for a class of 2 small escort carriers be justified (~30-40,000 tonnes)?

To be clear I am referring to dedicated escort carriers (as opposed to putting F35s on the LHDs for instance, which has been clearly discredited as a viable option).

Regards,

Massive

IMHO, in a threat environment, the LHDs will be reliant on escorts.
unless we have supporting allied assets, then most of the RAN combatant capability will be involved in this activity.
Actual amphib ops might be a luxury.

instead I think the LHDs will be slaved to supporting RAN ops, and ineffect become anti-submarine helicopter carriers for convoy escort or task force ops.

methinks that instead of trading off HCFs, instead we actually need more, faster, and/or more escort types to afford us the luxury of deployment.

 

[cdxbow]

ASPI has just put this up Equipping Australia’s navy to meet the threat from PLA anti-ship cruise missiles | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au) It's looks at RAN deficiencies in air defence and missile strike capabilities and makes a number of suggestions. Some of the actions are already happening.

'The problem faced by the RAN is that the current fleet is unlikely to meet the ASCM threat spectrum of today, let alone the ASCM threat spectrum of the 2030s and 2040s. Nor does the future RAN battle force appear sufficient to meet a dystopian future in which the PLA Navy will be the world’s largest navy. An even greater concern is that the ADF doesn’t possess the very long-range strike capability that would be needed to make any substantial contribution in a high-intensity regional war against a technologically advanced and sophisticated adversary.'

 

[ddxx]

If a class of 6-8 GP frigates were to be acquired, would trading some of the Hunters (to say 6) for a class of 2 small escort carriers be justified (~30-40,000 tonnes)?

I wouldn't advocate touching Hunter's numbers. I'd rather be looking at rethinking the specialist minor vessels for the deployment and recovery of UXVs for MCM and ASW surveillance. GP Frigates with a number of multirole boat/UXV bays can both perform these roles but also be flexible in their tasking allowing for greater presence throughout our region. That's what the Japanese, British and Americans are doing.

 

[weegee]

Seems it is now official about the NSM etc:

$3.5 billion to accelerate missile strike capabilities for the ADF | Defence Ministers

The Morrison Government has approved the accelerated acquisition of improved weapon capabilities for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) at a total cost of $3.5 billion.Minister for Defence the Hon Peter Dutton MP today announced that Defence will accelerate the acquisition of:

www.minister.defence.gov.au

 

[Going Boeing]

JSM isn't integrated on the F-35 yet, it is ongoing. IMO there is no rush to buy a missile that isn't yet integrated on a platform to fire it. P8 and other aircraft are on a list behind that and may require more funding etc.

Agreed. Integration on the F35 is ongoing & Finland has ordered the JSM for internal carriage on their recently ordered F35’s. Australia has been jointly developing the JSM with Norway for some time and BAE Systems Australia is supplying the Passive Radio Frequency Sensors for them - with such a level of involvement, it’s likely that they will be ordered for the ADF.

Australian Defence Magazine - JSM third customer

 

[alexsa]

If a class of 6-8 GP frigates were to be acquired, would trading some of the Hunters (to say 6) for a class of 2 small escort carriers be justified (~30-40,000 tonnes)?

To be clear I am referring to dedicated escort carriers (as opposed to putting F35s on the LHDs for instance, which has been clearly discredited as a viable option).

Regards,

Massive

Remember the advice about logic. You would be trading three Hunters (top tier ASW hunters with a very credible ASuW, AAW and ABM fit) for 6 to 8 GP frigates and two large hull 'escort carriers' (and what are these to be equipped with as an air group?). Essentially this increases the number of vessel to be escorted (add the carriers to the two LHD, two AOR, two JSS and the, potentially independent, LST's ... or derivations there off) by replacing three very capable escorts with six GP frigates with a self defence AAW capability and a compromised ASW capability while adding five to eight additional hulls to man and sustain.

If we agree that the minimum the bench mark as an escort would be a frigate with at least the capability of the upgraded ANZAC with the ASW upgrade then these would still be very expensive. If not and we go cheap an cheerful ......, what is the advantage noting these would either displace Hunter hulls being built as ASC or require a different yard. Alternatively they could be purchased overseas compromising the sovereign construction capability and domestic sustainment capability that is being put in place.

I assume the 30-40K tonne hulls would have to be built overseas as well. The air group would have to be purchased as well (even if this is just additional Romeos ... which I think are needed in anycase). ASW helos are very capable but they would be more so if the escorts had a multi static ASW sensor suite and combat system compared to a basic monostatic ASW suite on the average GP frigate. Even our DDG's are biStatic.

I cannot see the sense in a GP frigate replacing a third of the Hunters noting the additional costs of sperate sustainment system, manning and training (noting these vessel are likely to have a different sensor suite ... if not .... then you might as well just tick with the Hunters). Given all the issues I can see no reason to replace any of the planned hulls with a GP frigate. Build soon and build more would be a good option.

If a GP frigate is desired it should not be at the expense of the current build.

 

[Massive]

Thanks for the replies.

Understood. My question really came from the discussion highlighting the need for more escorts and reflecting on the importance of carriers in the Pacific in WWII. Given the distances involved air based air cover clearly isn't going to be an option.

Thanks again,

Massive