Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ngatimozart]

My apologies mate, I'm speaking in regards to the clear differences in requirements for the two ships. Hunter will be an equally capable high-end AAW platform as it is an ASW platform - by virtue of AEGIS, CEAFAR and SM2/6. That's not the case for the Type 26.

The RN has different CONOPS to the RAN and the RCN who's CONOPS are different yet again. So let's just be clear sensors and weapons are only one part of the equation. It's what it's being used for that matters and the RN City Class, the RAN Hunter Class, and the RCN CSC all reflect their navies different CONOPS and philosophies. So be less judgemental and learn because many times in defence all is not what it appears to be.

 

[south]

(Redrafted after Moderator comment)

The flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet was reported by USNI to be hit by two Ukrainian Neptune SSMs today, and crippled or sunk. The Neptune SSM is a modernised SS-N-25 Russian SSM with new guidance and command features. It has a range of 190 NM and 160kg warhead. A battery (4) was reportedly fired at Moskva, plus assistance (decoy?) from a drone. Moskva carried 64 x SAN6 and 40 x SAN 4 SAMs, but no phased array radar. In fact Moskva's single band radar for its S300 SAM fire control appears infereior to what the Anzac Class already carry.

There is a lot we still don't know, ut if it is as reported in USNI there seem to be some implications in this for RAN surface ship procurement.
- Judging warship strength is not just counting VLS tubes. Good sensors to track targets and identify incoming threats are just as important.
- A defending warship without phased array radar looks to still be very vulnerable to sea-skimming SSMs, even if sub-sonic.
- Moskva had six CIWS and decoys, but still got hit by 2 of 4 SSMs fired.
- so there does not seem much point planning to build smaller warships that cannot carry a full sensor suite and SAMs to back it up.
- No evidence that fitting CIWS makes much difference either.
- Buying second hand old ships without modern sensor packages seems a waste fo money.

UPDATED: Russia Says Damaged Cruiser Moskva Sank Under Tow Headed to Black Sea Homeport - USNI News

This story has been updated to include a report from Russian state media Moskva has sunk. Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship RTS Moskva (121) has sunk while being towed toward Sevastopol, Crimea, after sustaining major damage in a fire Wednesday, Russian state media said on Thursday. “During the...

news.usni.org

@Scott Elaurant

I don't see the connection to the RAN, except is does explain why many push back on the idea of light frigates. If you want to approach it in that context then reframe it to do so. Otherwise I suggest this belongs in the Russian Navy Tread.

Russian Navy Discussions and Updates

JSC Admiralty Shipyards has begun cutting steel for the 3rd and 4th Project 677 Lada Class submarines simultaneously. The second Project 677 submarine, Kronstadt, was launched in September 2018. The shipyard is currently preparing the submarine for the second stage of factory sea trials...

www.defencetalk.com

alexsa

G’day Scott,

Thanks for this post. While your points are likely true, I’d posit that not enough is known at present to make any assessments. The fact is, that while it’s highly likely that Moskva was hit by Ukrainian Anti-Ship Missile (ASM), we don’t know why the Moskva was unable to defend itself. We don’t know what was the failure in the Russian kill chain in hard kill, or the live chain for soft kill measures (or even that any hard or soft kill measures were used).

As an example your post essentially assumes that the Moskva was fully armed, fully powered up, and had effective defensive ROE.

But it could be that the Moskva was able to detect, Identify/Classify and achieve and what could have been effective tracks on the missiles, but was hampered by ROE to prevent them firing without permission from higher command (Failure of doctrine and ROE). Or even that the engagement delay was wholly within the ship, and the internal chain of command was too slow to prevent intercept of all the incoming ASM (failure of individual and/or collective training). It could also be that they were radar off for some unknown reason, or that discrete subsystems were not functioning correctly.

These linked articles details a similar episode in a western navy - the sinking of HMS Sheffield, where the outcome could have been significantly different in what was essentially elements of bad timing, luck (or bad luck) and some human failings rather than materiel.

cheers

 

[Volkodav]

G’day Scott,

Thanks for this post. While your points are likely true, I’d posit that not enough is known at present to make any assessments. The fact is, that while it’s highly likely that Moskva was hit by Ukrainian Anti-Ship Missile (ASM), we don’t know why the Moskva was unable to defend itself. We don’t know what was the failure in the Russian kill chain in hard kill, or the live chain for soft kill measures (or even that any hard or soft kill measures were used).

As an example your post essentially assumes that the Moskva was fully armed, fully powered up, and had effective defensive ROE.

But it could be that the Moskva was able to detect, Identify/Classify and achieve and what could have been effective tracks on the missiles, but was hampered by ROE to prevent them firing without permission from higher command (Failure of doctrine and ROE). Or even that the engagement delay was wholly within the ship, and the internal chain of command was too slow to prevent intercept of all the incoming ASM (failure of individual and/or collective training). It could also be that they were radar off for some unknown reason, or that discrete subsystems were not functioning correctly.

These linked articles details a similar episode in a western navy - the sinking of HMS Sheffield, where the outcome could have been significantly different in what was essentially elements of bad timing, luck (or bad luck) and some human failings rather than materiel.

cheers

The other factor is the Russian military have consistently underperformed during the invasion and actually appear quite hollow in many areas, i.e. logistics, training, intelligence, decision making and in particular the integration of capabilities that may be independently impressive.

Russia is also a society that has been run by a brutal individual for two decades now, someone who does not, from many reports, react well when being told what he doesn't want to hear. A command structure built by a bully who doesn't tolerate decent, and rules by fear, is prone to corruption and incompetence.

 

[alexsa]

Folks ….. This is the RAN thread. Back on topic please. The last 2 posts have nothing really to do with the RAN. If you want to discuss the conflict or the Russian Navy use the correct thread. This is the second green warning. Please don’t push it to a red.

Alexsa

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Deleted and switched to Other thread.

 

[76mmGuns]

Hunter-class frigates won’t meet the RAN’s needs

Piece by Paul Greenfield and Jon Stanford on The Strategist.

@ddxx

For such qualified sounding people, I found this article to be rather disappointing.

The Hunter class can take more than 32 VLS if need be, and nothing has been officially declared yet.

The fact there will be no extra VLS for a decade is not new news.

As many have said here when discussing getting extra Hobart's- that's too late.

I think, and I know I put myself in danger here because it's getting into fantasy fleets....here goes....Australia tries to get one frigate which can do everything because it can't afford to have lots of multiple classes. I think if Australia could afford it, we could have several guided missile destroyers similar to Sejong The Great, several dedicated anti submarine frigates based on the Type 26, and some light duty escort frigates, like the Fremm or Type 31. But we can't, so we don't.

And as for why we're in the situation....there's a politics ban so I'll leave that.

 

[hauritz]

(Redrafted after Moderator comment)

The flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet was reported by USNI to be hit by two Ukrainian Neptune SSMs today, and crippled or sunk. The Neptune SSM is a modernised SS-N-25 Russian SSM with new guidance and command features. It has a range of 190 NM and 160kg warhead. A battery (4) was reportedly fired at Moskva, plus assistance (decoy?) from a drone. Moskva carried 64 x SAN6 and 40 x SAN 4 SAMs, but no phased array radar. In fact Moskva's single band radar for its S300 SAM fire control appears infereior to what the Anzac Class already carry.

There is a lot we still don't know, ut if it is as reported in USNI there seem to be some implications in this for RAN surface ship procurement.
- Judging warship strength is not just counting VLS tubes. Good sensors to track targets and identify incoming threats are just as important.
- A defending warship without phased array radar looks to still be very vulnerable to sea-skimming SSMs, even if sub-sonic.
- Moskva had six CIWS and decoys, but still got hit by 2 of 4 SSMs fired.
- so there does not seem much point planning to build smaller warships that cannot carry a full sensor suite and SAMs to back it up.
- No evidence that fitting CIWS makes much difference either.
- Buying second hand old ships without modern sensor packages seems a waste fo money.

UPDATED: Russia Says Damaged Cruiser Moskva Sank Under Tow Headed to Black Sea Homeport - USNI News

This story has been updated to include a report from Russian state media Moskva has sunk. Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship RTS Moskva (121) has sunk while being towed toward Sevastopol, Crimea, after sustaining major damage in a fire Wednesday, Russian state media said on Thursday. “During the...

news.usni.org

@Scott Elaurant

I don't see the connection to the RAN, except is does explain why many push back on the idea of light frigates. If you want to approach it in that context then reframe it to do so. Otherwise I suggest this belongs in the Russian Navy Tread.

Russian Navy Discussions and Updates

JSC Admiralty Shipyards has begun cutting steel for the 3rd and 4th Project 677 Lada Class submarines simultaneously. The second Project 677 submarine, Kronstadt, was launched in September 2018. The shipyard is currently preparing the submarine for the second stage of factory sea trials...

www.defencetalk.com

alexsa

Certainly it has made me reconsider the value of smaller frigates or budget larger ships such as the Arrow 140. I used to be a fan but I am reconsidering my position now.

I think in the wake of the Russia/Ukraine war there will be a lot of discussions about many things, the ineffectiveness of Russian Ground and Air forces initially, but now there has to be some question about the effectiveness of missile defences on warships as well. Also fire fighting. From the Falkland's war through to now it seems that it is fire that mostly kills ships.

Of big concern for Australia is that the bulk of our naval force is made up of 90's era frigates, and will be for well into the foreseeable future. Not sure what can be done about that.

 

[Redlands18]

For such qualified sounding people, I found this article to be rather disappointing.

The Hunter class can take more than 32 VLS if need be, and nothing has been officially declared yet.

The fact there will be no extra VLS for a decade is not new news.

As many have said here when discussing getting extra Hobart's- that's too late.

I think, and I know I put myself in danger here because it's getting into fantasy fleets....here goes....Australia tries to get one frigate which can do everything because it can't afford to have lots of multiple classes. I think if Australia could afford it, we could have several guided missile destroyers similar to Sejong The Great, several dedicated anti submarine frigates based on the Type 26, and some light duty escort frigates, like the Fremm or Type 31. But we can't, so we don't.

And as for why we're in the situation....there's a politics ban so I'll leave that.

The FREMM is not a Light Duty Escort Frigate, the USN iteration, the Constellation class is actually longer then the Type 26 and the French and Italian ships are only 5m shorter. They were along with the Navantia F-5000 the losing contenders in Sea 5000.

 

[John Newman]

Of big concern for Australia is that the bulk of our naval force is made up of 90's era frigates, and will be for well into the foreseeable future. Not sure what can be done about that.

Sorry? But what the hell are you on about?

Yes the hulls were built/commissioned between 1996 and 2006, but ‘today’ they are completely different animals.

The RAN Anzac class frigates have been through ‘two’ major upgrades, the most recent is still in the process of being completed.

Yes it’s Easter time, and I shouldn’t be such a grumpy old bastard, but seriously??

Yes 90s era hulls, but NOT 90s era sensor and weapons fit.

 

[ngatimozart]

Certainly it has made me reconsider the value of smaller frigates or budget larger ships such as the Arrow 140. I used to be a fan but I am reconsidering my position now.

I think in the wake of the Russia/Ukraine war there will be a lot of discussions about many things, the ineffectiveness of Russian Ground and Air forces initially, but now there has to be some question about the effectiveness of missile defences on warships as well. Also fire fighting. From the Falkland's war through to now it seems that it is fire that mostly kills ships.

Of big concern for Australia is that the bulk of our naval force is made up of 90's era frigates, and will be for well into the foreseeable future. Not sure what can be done about that.

I wouldn't read anything at all into the Moskva loss at the moment. We know nothing except that it's on the bottom of the Black Sea providing a home for crab sand lobsters as one Ukrainian has put it. That's all we can say. Reading anything else into it without out the required data and information is a fools errand.

 

[John Newman]

For such qualified sounding people, I found this article to be rather disappointing.

The Hunter class can take more than 32 VLS if need be, and nothing has been officially declared yet.

The fact there will be no extra VLS for a decade is not new news.

As many have said here when discussing getting extra Hobart's- that's too late.

I think, and I know I put myself in danger here because it's getting into fantasy fleets....here goes....Australia tries to get one frigate which can do everything because it can't afford to have lots of multiple classes. I think if Australia could afford it, we could have several guided missile destroyers similar to Sejong The Great, several dedicated anti submarine frigates based on the Type 26, and some light duty escort frigates, like the Fremm or Type 31. But we can't, so we don't.

And as for why we're in the situation....there's a politics ban so I'll leave that.

When it comes to the ASPI Strategist some myths need to be put to bed.

Articles are written by both ‘staff’ writers and ‘guest’ contributors.

One would hope the ‘staff’ writers are on the top of their game, clearly they are not (last week I made Hellyer update an article that was wrong).

As for the ‘guest’ contributors, well you, I, or anyone can write an article and submit it for publication.

It’s not like an article published is some how delivered by God (or many of the Gods I don’t believe in), and somehow being the gospel truth, it isn’t.

Sadly there are so many ‘experts’ out there that don’t stand up to fair scrutiny or criticism, why doesn't ASPI have a comment section? Because it would show the very many flaws in the articles published.

I’ve learnt that the knowledge, and the opinions, of the many senior contributors here to be far more accurate many times over, and over many many years too.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

When it comes to the ASPI Strategist some myths need to be put to bed.

Articles are written by both ‘staff’ writers and ‘guest’ contributors.

One would hope the ‘staff’ writers are on the top of their game, clearly they are not (last week I made Hellyer update an article that was wrong).

As for the ‘guest’ contributors, well you, I, or anyone can write an article and submit it for publication.

It’s not like an article published is some how delivered by God (or many of the Gods I don’t believe in), and somehow being the gospel truth, it isn’t.

Sadly there are so many ‘experts’ out there that don’t stand up to fair scrutiny or criticism, why doesn't ASPI have a comment section? Because it would show the very many flaws in the articles published.

I’ve learnt that the knowledge, and the opinions, of the many senior contributors here to be far more accurate many times over, and over many many years too.

I stumbled down this rabbit hole when covid started
If you need someone to ask what you would consider inane questions
Give me the heads up

 

[braddmlewis]

Sorry? But what the hell are you on about?

Yes the hulls were built/commissioned between 1996 and 2006, but ‘today’ they are completely different animals.

The RAN Anzac class frigates have been through ‘two’ major upgrades, the most recent is still in the process of being completed.

Yes it’s Easter time, and I shouldn’t be such a grumpy old bastard, but seriously??

Yes 90s era hulls, but NOT 90s era sensor and weapons fit.

Surely everyone understands the sensor and weapons fit out is not the original spec from when the Anzac’s launched. That combined with proper and regular training and drills should make a Moskva scenario somewhat unlikely (not to mention the lack of deck mounted giant missiles wanting to cook off at the first chance they get). Once more facts and details emerge I’m sure whatever learnings there are will be incorporated into any future operational process and designs.

 

[buffy9]

All the news from the federal election campaign as a new week on the hustings begins — as it happened

Get up to speed with all the latest updates from the campaign as the federal election enters its second week.

www.abc.net.au

There is a pledge* by the Coalition to build two additional evolved CCPB in WA, noted about an hour ago. Keeping in mind it is all politics atm, it is still interesting that they are deciding to bring that fleet to eight boats.

Has there been any consideration to what will happen to the CCPB fleet in the long-term? If ABF and RAN fleets are combined (and the pledge included) then the fleet is brought to eighteen boats - eight ABF, ten RAN. This is in addition to twelve OPV and possibly Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector.

I'm apolitical - just trying to pass on information from either side if I see it.

 

[Volkodav]

All the news from the federal election campaign as a new week on the hustings begins — as it happened

Get up to speed with all the latest updates from the campaign as the federal election enters its second week.

www.abc.net.au

There is a pledge* by the Coalition to build two additional evolved CCPB in WA, noted about an hour ago. Keeping in mind it is all politics atm, it is still interesting that they are deciding to bring that fleet to eight boats.

Has there been any consideration to what will happen to the CCPB fleet in the long-term? If ABF and RAN fleets are combined (and the pledge included) then the fleet is brought to eighteen boats - eight ABF, ten RAN. This is in addition to twelve OPV and possibly Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector.

Waste of money, they don't even know how they want to maintain them. Running low on voter support in WA, give more work to Austal. Doesn't matter the things are next to useless.

 

[SwingShift]

I

All the news from the federal election campaign as a new week on the hustings begins — as it happened

Get up to speed with all the latest updates from the campaign as the federal election enters its second week.

www.abc.net.au

There is a pledge* by the Coalition to build two additional evolved CCPB in WA, noted about an hour ago. Keeping in mind it is all politics atm, it is still interesting that they are deciding to bring that fleet to eight boats.

Has there been any consideration to what will happen to the CCPB fleet in the long-term? If ABF and RAN fleets are combined (and the pledge included) then the fleet is brought to eighteen boats - eight ABF, ten RAN. This is in addition to twelve OPV and possibly Ocean Shield and Ocean Protector.

I'm apolitical - just trying to pass on information from either side if I see it.

Given the low crewing requirements, relatively low acquisition costs and hopefully relatively low operating and sustainment costs I see a place for these in a modern RAN as long as we very clearly accept that these are not in any way combatants.

Australia‘s massive coastline and EEZ will always have more boats of interest that we want to identify and track and these vessels can contribute to this as a Cape did with the recent Chinese warships transiting Australia’s north leading to the laser incident. Similarly for increased routine presence deployments around our islands and territories and those of our Pacific neighbours to increase the perception of security and awareness provide for and by Australia, noting that not every task requires a heavy, capable and costly warship and in many instances this would send the wrong message.

With an ADF integrated sensor suite these vessels contribute to a deeper understanding of what’s going on in Australian waters and our approaches.

No doubt Australia needs more capable MFU‘s, but IMHO there is also a roll for smaller non-combatant integrated grey hulls. Particularly if in the future these can monitor larger areas through an appropriate ship-launched UAV.

Smaller vessels also play a major role in the pipeline of command experience.

 

[Going Boeing]

My understanding is that the evolved Cape Class are only planned to serve until circa 2030 when they will be replaced by Arafuras. That would be a very short service life (6-8 years) for a significant tax payer investment.

Border Force could probably take them and retire their older Cape Class vessels but it certainly looks like the tax payer is not getting full value.

 

[SwingShift]

O

My understanding is that the evolved Cape Class are only planned to serve until circa 2030 when they will be replaced by Arafuras. That would be a very short service life (6-8 years) for a significant tax payer investment.

Border Force could probably take them and retire their older Cape Class vessels but it certainly looks like the tax payer is not getting full value.

Only if they are superfluous to needs or if operating them comes at the cost of a more valuable capability. If they continue to extend and add value to our ADF reach, presence, intelligence and persistence, or that of the ABF in protecting Australia’s interests.

 

[John Newman]

I can never understand the negativity when it comes to the potential of a couple of extra PBs.

Is it because they will be built in WA by Austal? (That dirty ‘WA mafia’ statement that gets thrown around here from time to time over the years?).

I live here in NSW, so I have no axe to grind about WA one way or the other.

I could say the same thing about SA being spoon fed and all the political pork barrelling that goes on with SA shipbuilding.

In the big scheme of things, what’s wrong with a couple of extra PBs? Isn’t it a positive thing?

 

[Volkodav]

I can never understand the negativity when it comes to the potential of a couple of extra PBs.

Is it because they will be built in WA by Austal? (That dirty ‘WA mafia’ statement that gets thrown around here from time to time over the years?).

I live here in NSW, so I have no axe to grind about WA one way or the other.

I could say the same thing about SA being spoon fed and all the political pork barrelling that goes on with SA shipbuilding.

In the big scheme of things, what’s wrong with a couple of extra PBs? Isn’t it a positive thing?

Few would object to extra destroyers or frigates, even OPVs that can be repurposed when not required for patrol and constabulary work.

As for WA verses SA, there is ASC, BAE and Civmech in WA, who do good work but you never hear about, ASC and BAE in SA who also do good work but get nothing but criticism. Then there is Austal, who no matter how often, or how badly they screw up, never get criticised and always get more work than was planned or budgeted.

My objection to more PBs is the opportunity cost. They produce crews who know how to operate patrol boats, but nothing else, and a support system, that ignores and bypasses established processes and tools to keep them operating with string and chewing gum.

Not much translates to the bigger picture. They produce an entire system within a system that breaks people through overwork and lack of support, they cost far too much for what they deliver.

They contribute nothing to war fighting capability, they contribute very little to border protection. Their contribution to training is also overrated as the small crews are overworked, lacking the critical mass to grow and mentor junior sailors and leaders. It's much more a crucible than a school room, sink or swim.