Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[thatsamguy]

Ref: Australia accelerates missile upgrade due to growing threats

Confirmation of missile types and platforms to avoid further confusion.

Under a revised timetable, FA-18F Super Hornet fighter jets would be armed with improved U.S.-manufactured air-to-surface missiles by 2024, three years earlier than planned.

The JASSM-ER missiles would enable fighters to engaged targets at a range of 900 kilometers (560 miles).

Australia’s ANZAC Class frigates and Hobart Class destroyers would be equipped with Norwegian-made Kongsberg NSM missiles by 2024, five years ahead of schedule.

The missiles would more than double the warships’ strike range.

Edit: Weegee's post from the DefMin has the same data and seems to be the source for the AP article - I missed that post before

 

[ADMk2]

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

www.pm.gov.au

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.

Yep, I meant on anything else besides the AWD so far, nor anything else besides TacTom Block IV as yet. These might all be direct commercial sales, but there hasn't even been any announcements on DSCA on these programs since the LRASM one went up, 2 years or so ago...

 

[ADMk2]

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

The purchase of JSM is supported by the fact we will be operating NSM in RAN (and possibly as a land based ASM system) and it's links with JSM. Additionally on JSM it is designed to fit in the internal bays of the F-35A and may well be integrated onto P-8A by Norway.

So it has a bit going for it.

BUT, AGM-154C1 JSOW is also integrated already on F-35A, fits in it's internal bays is already in the RAAF weapons inventory and is maritime attack capable, RAAF has already purchased a more capable air-launched anti-ship missile in the form of LRASM which will be integrated onto F-35A (as well as P-8A and Super Hornet) and will be pursuing the upgraded AARGM-ER which will also fit in F-35A internal bays, offers supersonic attack profiles and has anti-ship missile capability.

Given the above I am not certain whether RAAF will be keen on a 4th ASM type, that offers little that it's existing 3 missile types, don't, especially given it's desire to also acquire hypersonic weapons for strike operations including maritime strike roles. I could easily be wrong and will put my hand up if that is the case, but RAAF has a strong history (as does ADF more broadly) of minimising it's overall inventory of guided weapons types, for good reason...

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile in the real, non fantasy fleet SSN speculation ship re-engineering world of the RAN. Can't believe it's been 17 years. Fair winds and following seas to the birdies of Shark02.
"Royal Australian Navy personnel at HMAS Albatross in Nowra, New South Wales, paused on Saturday, 02 April 2022 to remember the nine lives lost and two seriously injured when the 817 Squadron Sea King helicopter with the callsign 'SHARK 02' crashed on the Indonesian island of Nias on 02 April 2005. Since then the RAN Fleet Air Arm has held a commemorative service every year at the 'SHARK 02' memorial outside the HMAS Albatross chapel. This year marks the 17th year since the incident and, once again, Navy personnel gathered to remember the shipmates lost in the accident. This year's service was lead by Chaplain Jenny Schleusener and attended by Commodore Dave Frost, Commander of the Fleet Air Arm, and Captain Robyn Phillips, Commanding Officer of HMAS Albatross." Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[MickB]

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.

I lean more to the option of replacing the last 3 Hunters with a DDH based on the same hull.
These will be dedicated escort vessels, not F35 carriers.
From here the option to follow up with a class of dedicated carriers becomes easier.

 

[ddxx]

Spanish shipbuilder’s pitch on destroyers | The Australian

Behind a paywall, so here's a summary:

• Navantia has proposed to build three more Hobart Class DDGs within a decade.
• Navantia says they could be built for an estimated $2bn each.
• They argue that the ships would be completed before the first of the Hunter Class enters service.
• They suggest they could be built in Australia, in Spain or in a hybrid model across both countries.
• Proposal has been pitched to both Labor and the Coalition.

 

[Gryphinator]

Spanish shipbuilder’s pitch on destroyers | The Australian

Behind a paywall, so here's a summary:

• Navantia has proposed to build three more Hobart Class DDGs within a decade.
• Navantia says they could be built for an estimated $2bn each.
• They argue that the ships would be completed before the first of the Hunter Class enters service.
• They suggest they could be built in Australia, in Spain or in a hybrid model across both countries.
• Proposal has been pitched to both Labor and the Coalition.

6 and you've got a deal!

 

[vonnoobie]

Spanish shipbuilder’s pitch on destroyers | The Australian

Behind a paywall, so here's a summary:

• Navantia has proposed to build three more Hobart Class DDGs within a decade.
• Navantia says they could be built for an estimated $2bn each.
• They argue that the ships would be completed before the first of the Hunter Class enters service.
• They suggest they could be built in Australia, in Spain or in a hybrid model across both countries.
• Proposal has been pitched to both Labor and the Coalition.

IF Navantia has learnt its lesson then it does have merit. As mentioned over the last month or so by some of the Defpro's the cost of upgrading the Hobarts is near enough to 70% the cost of just replacing them all not counting the lost existing capability when they are taken out of service for the works. This may if done right and decision made quickly and design ideally ready to go to the configuration we would want allow the work force for the Hunters to be built up and ready to roll when they start really pumping the gas on their construction (Assuming they will start slow to ensure the actual product meets desire rather then having to go back and fix multiple ships). It could also help to aleviate potential issues in regards to numbers of vessels.

It will all depend on what proposal they put forward and if they actually have a proper plan ready to go or if they are just promising the world to try and score more work.

 

[seaspear]

I don't want to sound like I'm going down some fantasy route about buying any available destroyer but the Hobart design is the best part of fifteen years old , if were to need such ships we should consider others just coming e.g. the Japanese Maya class or South Korean KDX-111 batch 11 allowing them also to tender if the government thought there was such a need

 

[Wombat000]

My mind invariably replays the part of the movie ‘Battle of Britain’, where Dowding laments he needs pilots, he rationalises loses and capability.
But today he is saying “we need escorts”.

 

[vonnoobie]

I don't want to sound like I'm going down some fantasy route about buying any available destroyer but the Hobart design is the best part of fifteen years old , if were to need such ships we should consider others just coming e.g. the Japanese Maya class or South Korean KDX-111 batch 11 allowing them also to tender if the government thought there was such a need

The problem with going for other destroyer classes is most of them tend to be crew heavier but even ignoring that factor our industry is not experienced in the slightest for those classes nor have those classes been redesigned around Australian needs. IF Navantia has used the previous Hobart design as a basis and then folded in the upgraded Aegis etc then that class would be closer to a build stage then any other potential offer.

 

[ngatimozart]

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but the time for another batch of DDGs by Navantia, DDH's, lengthening the Hunter Class so that if they get any longer you can theoretically fly a B-52H off them, upgrading Arafura Class OPVs past what they are currently being built with etc., is now past. As is the topic of what the RAN SSN's will or wont be etc. Every possible combination has been done to death and rehashed that many times that even the Moderators are starting to doubt whether they are Arthur or Martha.

We just don't know and until the Commonwealth decide to inform us of their wisdom, decisions and plans, no amount of rehashing is going to change things. This thread is going the way of the first one and people are starting to lose patience.

So be warned if people don't heed this advice the Moderators will take steps that some people won't like. It's up to you.

 

[InterestedParty]

Do any of the current or proposed missiles have warheads capable of denying the use of a runway such as maybe found somewhere like the Solomon Islands.
My amateur understanding is that this requires some sort of penetration and TLAM doesn't do sufficient damage to knockout a runway

 

[JohnJT]

I hope the RAN also equips it's MH-60Rs with NSMs. That would extend the destroyers and frigates NSM strike range even further as well as giving the MH-60Rs a stand off precision land attack capability.

 

[Stampede]

Lots of talk about the speed of our current and future frigates and destroyers.
Trade off of size and capability versus speed and endurance.
I'm wondering is speed important?
I can understand in WW11 an ASW destroyer wanting the ability to out pace the relatively slow submarines of the day.
I can understand the USN wanting the capability to have speed parity with their submerged foe and have fast dedicated ASW ships with that capacity.
For the RAN I'm not so sure.
We are a mid sized navy trying to do all things with a relatively small numbers of vessels.
I would expect a lot of our maritime prosecution of attack will be from our helicopter assets.
Helicopters can always fly faster than a ship or submarine.
Also our limited fleet will by necessity probably have one or more of our slower supply ships or Amphibs as part of the fleet taskforce.
So again, is speed that important for the RAN.

Curious

Regards S

 

[Pusser01]

Outside of the fantasy fleet, Toowoomba is going back into the water today after completing the docking phase of her AMCAP. Cheers.

 

[ASSAIL]

Lots of talk about the speed of our current and future frigates and destroyers.
Trade off of size and capability versus speed and endurance.
I'm wondering is speed important?
I can understand in WW11 an ASW destroyer wanting the ability to out pace the relatively slow submarines of the day.
I can understand the USN wanting the capability to have speed parity with their submerged foe and have fast dedicated ASW ships with that capacity.
For the RAN I'm not so sure.
We are a mid sized navy trying to do all things with a relatively small numbers of vessels.
I would expect a lot of our maritime prosecution of attack will be from our helicopter assets.
Helicopters can always fly faster than a ship or submarine.
Also our limited fleet will by necessity probably have one or more of our slower supply ships or Amphibs as part of the fleet taskforce.
So again, is speed that important for the RAN.

Curious

Regards S

There’s an unhealthy focus on escort speed because in the RAN context whether it’s 26kts - 30kts is irrelevant.
The usual SOA (speed of advance) of a high value escorted unit is normally planned about 12-15 kts.
An escort will spent the majority of its time patrolling a screen sector at a few kts above that so it can cover the whole sector but importantly slow enough to enable the sonars optimum performance.
When a change of course or change of screen sector/position is required the escorts will increase speed to a promulgated “stationing” speed which is usually around 21 - 23kts.
Naturally there may be an occasion where a sprint is required or if escorting a CVN.

An old but good example;
During the Vietnam war, flight Ops took place in quite a congested environment in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Each CVA was given a defined operating area. During quite lengthy launch and recovery cycles the carrier may come close to the area boundary so on completion they would reverse course and sprint back to the opposite edge at 30+kts.
A DDG was always allocated to “plane guard” duty and was required to remain close to the carrier.
RAN DDGs were often allocated to this duty and although they were capable of staying with the carrier on the downwind leg we never did because that speed would require all 4 boilers to be connected whereas if only 2 boilers were in operation the ship could maintain 28kts and we just caught up when the carrier turned into wind again.
The takeout from this is,
a. We are unlikely to ever operate in a CBG,
b. Doubling the power to get an extra 5kts is wasteful,
c. In the RAN context, whether the top speed is 26 or 28kts is irrelevant.
All IMHO naturally.

 

[Stampede]

There’s an unhealthy focus on escort speed because in the RAN context whether it’s 26th - 30mtr is irrelevant.
The usual SOA (speed of advance) of a high value escorted unit is normally planned about 12-15 kts.
An escort will spent the majority of its time patrolling a screen sector at a few kts above that so it can cover the whole sector but importantly slow enough to enable the sonars optimum performance.
When a change of course or change of screen sector/position is required the escorts will increase speed to a promulgated “stationing” speed which is usually around 21 - 23kts.
Naturally there may be an occasion where a sprint is required or if escorting a CVN.

An old but good example;
During the Vietnam war, flight Ops took place in quite a congested environment in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Each CVA was given a defined operating area. During quite lengthy launch and recovery cycles the carrier may come close to the area boundary so on completion they would reverse course and sprint back to the opposite edge at 30+kts.
A DDG was always allocated to “plane guard” duty and was required to remain close to the carrier.
RAN DDGs were often allocated to this duty and although they were capable of staying with the carrier on the downwind leg we never did because that speed would require all 4 boilers to be connected whereas if only 2 boilers were in operation the ship could maintain 28kts and we just caught up when the carrier turned into wind again.
The takeout from this is,
a. We are unlikely to ever operate in a CBG,
b. Doubling the power to get an extra 5kts is wasteful,
c. In the RAN context, whether the top speed is 26 or 28kts is irrelevant.
All IMHO naturally.

Thanks Assail

I appreciate the response.
I guess it's one thing to have maritime assets that can slot into an allied task force and support their way of conducting business and another to satisfy our own needs.
We are a mid sized professional navy.
We have what we have and try and do the best with what we have.
At the end of the day it's still quite impressive for it's size.

Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

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)

About a weeks worth in the Ukraine...... But probably enough the thwart most naval attacks. The land attack missile numbers will be interesting unless the view is we would not hit a lot of land based targets and focus on denial in the Australian approaches?

 

[Bob53]

I don't want to sound like I'm going down some fantasy route about buying any available destroyer but the Hobart design is the best part of fifteen years old , if were to need such ships we should consider others just coming e.g. the Japanese Maya class or South Korean KDX-111 batch 11 allowing them also to tender if the government thought there was such a need

But that would require a whole of department re think and we ccan then get the best of the best some time in the 40s. The navatania proposal would cover relevant technology updates...they would not make them with the same engines delivered over 10 years ago...but a variant of...and the 3 Hobarts stay in the water.