Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[alexsa]

I have a different view from many. Mine is based on constraints and how we plan to work with or around them.

Ships are a system of systems intended to deliver a required or needed capability, in conjunction with other systems of systems.

Most seem fixated on the platform and to a lesser degree, the number of platforms. The real issue is the combination of systems that deliver the capability.

The most difficult part is designing, developing and integrating systems, in comparison, the platform is comparatively easy. For the platform you need a competent team to design, build and deliver an appropriate "platform system" to reliably get the other systems where they need to go, then home again.

There is an obsession with restricting size and weight, to the degree that combat capability is compromised because there is insufficient volume, power, cooling etc. to deliver the required capability.

This is why many on here are opposed to corvettes, they rightly point out that a larger platform will be longer ranged at higher speed and more survivable. My argument is that in the near term there is a constraint derived from time, contractual obligations, production capacity and crewing that may make the corvette a good enough option that can be delivered in time, verses a better solution that almost definately cannot.

The "good enough, that can be delivered in time" is also where we are with Hunter, while LOTE is the only feasible option remaining on submarines, after all others timed out. Ideally Hunter should have had a new platform design but the demand was SEA 4000 should shoehorn everything required into an existing design, Type 26 was the largest, most modern and most flexible option. It is now apparent that this wasn't the best way forward but it's what we have and any change will result in an intolerable capability gap.

The Hobart's are too small and too lacking in capability, with very limited capacity to be upgraded. Six or twelve of them would have been great, we built three. This is why the Hunters have AEGIS and a medium sized VLS, we needed high end ASW to fill a gap that has been growing for decades, but it was also seen that air and missile defence was a growing deficit. This is why the RAN wanted 10000t plus multirole destroyers with AEGIS and a strategic length VLS, but they got Hunters.

There are two ways to go in developing capability, sufficient numbers of networked good enough, or sufficient numbers of networked best you can get.

Agree, but I would note the Hunters will be a superb platform delivering cutting edge ASW capabilities. As for shifting to another platform mid way through the Hunter build this takes away the benefit of economy of scale and increased proficiency of the yard. This probably explains the BAE systems claim of 80% commonality with the hull.

However, a major redesign of the Hunter, or a move to a whole new platform, will have a time and risk penality (look at the impact on the Hunter of the change to CEAFAR with the combination of AEGIS and SAAB 9LV). Just remember, the original idea was to build the first three Hunters with minimal changes. Changing tack on that cost at least 18 months (more in real terms). I think the first hulls would be well advanced if not for that.

On a more optimistic note, there is nothing stopping iterative changes to the design between batches of the Hunter. These could include a hull stretch with more cells and more installed power. This would still be a serious redesign even if the stretch of the vessel at its maximum width and depth putting a hull plug in amidships (the only place a hull plug could be added due to hull shaping) for additional cells. However, it would still be a LOT better than a whole new design as many of the existing blocks may remain the same (hopeful speculation perhaps).

The other issue is ..... do we have the weapons stock piles to support this increase in cell numbers. Noting ESSM block I and II are quad packed filling all vessels will take a lot of additional weapons in the stock pile. Admitedly production of missiles in Australia will ease this issue.

We should all be put out of our misery when the SDR is released. It would be nice if we could finish at least one ship building project without vested interests attemption to shut it down and do something else. As we have seen the end result is the desired capability is not delivered and the RAN is worse off than if it just persisted with the project that they had. Both sides of politics and senior officials carry the can for this situation.

 

[Todjaeger]

I have a different view from many. Mine is based on constraints and how we plan to work with or around them.

Ships are a system of systems intended to deliver a required or needed capability, in conjunction with other systems of systems.

Most seem fixated on the platform and to a lesser degree, the number of platforms. The real issue is the combination of systems that deliver the capability.

The most difficult part is designing, developing and integrating systems, in comparison, the platform is comparatively easy. For the platform you need a competent team to design, build and deliver an appropriate "platform system" to reliably get the other systems where they need to go, then home again.

There is an obsession with restricting size and weight, to the degree that combat capability is compromised because there is insufficient volume, power, cooling etc. to deliver the required capability.

This is why many on here are opposed to corvettes, they rightly point out that a larger platform will be longer ranged at higher speed and more survivable. My argument is that in the near term there is a constraint derived from time, contractual obligations, production capacity and crewing that may make the corvette a good enough option that can be delivered in time, verses a better solution that almost definately cannot.

The "good enough, that can be delivered in time" is also where we are with Hunter, while LOTE is the only feasible option remaining on submarines, after all others timed out. Ideally Hunter should have had a new platform design but the demand was SEA 4000 should shoehorn everything required into an existing design, Type 26 was the largest, most modern and most flexible option. It is now apparent that this wasn't the best way forward but it's what we have and any change will result in an intolerable capability gap.

The Hobart's are too small and too lacking in capability, with very limited capacity to be upgraded. Six or twelve of them would have been great, we built three. This is why the Hunters have AEGIS and a medium sized VLS, we needed high end ASW to fill a gap that has been growing for decades, but it was also seen that air and missile defence was a growing deficit. This is why the RAN wanted 10000t plus multirole destroyers with AEGIS and a strategic length VLS, but they got Hunters.

There are two ways to go in developing capability, sufficient numbers of networked good enough, or sufficient numbers of networked best you can get.

I have a couple of thoughts on the above, as well as some of the other commentary which has been made here as well as elsewhere on the Internet.

I readily admit to being one of the opponents to the RAN having corvettes. One of the reasons why I oppose corvettes for the RAN is that any such efforts would likely be at the expense of more capable platforms which could actually be of great value to the RAN. Another is that I have serious reservations about whether a combat capable corvette could be brought into RAN service in time.

If one looks at the shipboard systems that the RAN uses (and Australia can support), as well as the existing corvette designs in service around the world, is there any crossover? AFAIK most of the ship systems used by the RAN, and therefore Australia already has supply and support chains in place, are not fitted to existing corvette designs and in some cases could not realistically be made to fit. The current naval gun used by the RAN comes to mind as a good example, with corvette designs most often having a 76mm or smaller gun, which the RAN has retired from service. The main SAM's used by the RAN require a Mk 41 VLS, or the ESSM could utilize the Mk 48 or Mk 56 VLS but neither of those are in RAN service, not to mention that I am uncertain about whether current FSG designs include options for either Mk 48 or Mk 56.

Yes, all of the needed supply chains could be built up, so that a corvette for the RAN could be brought into service, but that would take time as well as resources. With that reality in mind, I would much rather the RAN seek a larger and more capable GP frigate rather than an FSG and TBH I do not think a hypothetical corvette could be brought into RAN service significantly earlier than a hypothetical GP frigate. Yes, it might be possible for Civmec's Henderson facilities involved in building Arafura-class OPV's be stopped short of the ten planned for construction there. However, even if the OPV production run was cut short in favour of the facility producing something else for the RAN, time would be needed to select what design would be built, arrange the detailed design for the vessel's Australian fitout, as well as to place orders and get production started for the shipboard systems which would be required.

As for whether or not the Hunter-class being based off the Type 26 was the 'best' way forward, IMO only time will tell. Also, to be fair, I am not certain that, given the programme requirements, there were any other options which did not have a number of potential risks.

 

[ddxx]

As per BAE Systems Australia's Managing Director's own comments from last year:

“Hunter was always designed to have more Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells if necessary and we have the combat system, we have enough energy on the ship and we have the flexibility in the interface and the computing environment to be able to do that.”

Why then wouldn't we just fit all nine Hunters with a more appropriate VLS load out within those margins?

 

[alexsa]

As per BAE Systems Australia's Managing Director's own comments from last year:



Why then wouldn't we just fit all nine Hunters with a more appropriate VLS load out within those margins?

I doubt they were thinking of 100+ at the time and this is a massive increase over any arrangement seen to date. The T26 (UK version) also uses SeaCeptor for which additional VLS can be fitted on the current design. The RAN are only looking at MK41 VLS given the weapons this service plan to use. Without detailed plans we cannot guess at how many MK41 VLS can be fitted.

The RAN have added the CEA radar suite (which is a big piece of kit and consumes a lot of energy), AEGIS, the SAAB 9LV tactical interface and CEC to the Hunter. All of this take room and power.

As some note the final number of VLS cells has always assumed to be 32, but there appears to be some conjecture on the final number.

We are still guessing and it will be interesting to see what the SDR comes up with.

 

[seaspear]

Would though adding more length and weight to the Hunter class though affect overall speed and range?

 

[ddxx]

I doubt they were thinking of 100+ at the time and this is a massive increase over any arrangement seen to date. The T26 (UK version) also uses SeaCeptor for which additional VLS can be fitted on the current design. The RAN are only looking at MK41 VLS given the weapons this service plan to use. Without detailed plans we cannot guess at how many MK41 VLS can be fitted.

The RAN have added the CEA radar suite (which is a big piece of kit and consumes a lot of energy), AEGIS, the SAAB 9LV tactical interface and CEC to the Hunter. All of this take room and power.

As some note the final number of VLS cells has always assumed to be 32, but there appears to be some conjecture on the final number.

We are still guessing and it will be interesting to see what the SDR comes up with.

I was more thinking a minimum of 48 and ideally 64. Like you said this would depend upon how they’ve designed the forward silo space.

The comments from BAE were made specifically in context of Hunter’s design, so it would be interesting to know what the actual figure of MK-41 is.

Going by the rule of three, I’d rather have three Hunters at sea each with 48 or 64 cells than only one of three ‘cruisers’ with 100-150 cells.

 

[StingrayOZ]

For BAE proposal. That is great, start work on it. But it isn't going to happen before 2030 and our current crisis is a pre 2030 thing. Its more likely a 2040 thing.

The current threat of our time is China. The key space where the next fight will likely start is Taiwan. China is likely to attempt to invade Taiwan in the 2027-2030 period. That is when they believe they will have enough superiority over the US and its allies, and the capabilities needed to take Taiwan with overwhelming force. Thus BAE offer isn't likely to change the status on that equation.

The Navantia offer is claimed to be deliverable by 2027 with all three by 2029. There might even be scope to increase numbers and decrease timelines (RAND). That does shift the equation around this particular issue. The price, is also attractive, $6b. There is also support from the Spanish Navy for training and crewing and on delivery.

I know there is a lot of fear that more destroyers would mean less Hunters. I'm not sure that is the case. We are in the period of great competition, neither China or the US are going anywhere, post the 2030 period, there are going to be even more tensions regardless of if China attempts to take Taiwan or not. China is likely to increase the tempo of its ship building.

Not only that it is likely by the 2040's we will have started to out grow the first generation Hobarts. 48 VLS sounds like a lot, but if you replace it with 16 large hypersonic missiles, then that is a significant decrease in capability. The Hobarts also have no growth margin for higher energy radars and larger and heavier radars or other things we will definitely want by the 2040's. The ship we really need for the future isn't being built by anyone yet.

These ships will most likely be sold off (just like we have basically done with every ship we have wanted to sell) to a friendly. These will be easy commodities to move on. Most other navies won't be looking at Hypersonics, so a low crew requirement and a decent age ship will be of interest to plenty. But when we are ready and on our terms.

I don't know if the Anzacs can march on to the 2040's or 2050's. They are a limited capability platform, and 2040's is going to be a very different world.

If a war does break out, ship building will be disrupted. Existing platforms will receive heavy use, they will miss maintenance and get warn out. HMAS Anzac will be a 30 year old ship by 2026. It isn't armed with SM-6 or even SM-2 (you know, missiles we are trying to make). That crew could be located on a better and more capable ship. It doesn't have aegis. It doesn't have CEC. It doesn't really even have a CIWS and has basically no layered defence. Its a ship from a different time with a much different fit out. It can't mount the weapons it needs to protect itself.

Our priority should be replacing the Anzacs with a ship that can fire SM-6, SM-2, Tlam, a CIWS, has a proper layered defence, has Aegis, has hawklink, CEC, and is a part of the allied network maritime navy and can share data and weapons between those of the fleet. Anzac has none of that and can't have any of that.

If the worst that happens is we acquire 3 light destroyers, get 20 years of use out of them and then sell then on, that seems like a pretty economic, sensible, low risk compromise given the situation.

For BAE proposal, great, green light it. For sure, we will need 3+ large capable ships in the very near future, and to have those operational and overlapping with the existing Hobart's is fine, the Hobarts can tuck into a secondary role just fine. Ultimately the RAN fleet should move to a ~15-16 surface combatant navy, you know, like Canada has. Or Like Spain has... Or like Korea has... Or like any sensible middle power, even those poorer, better protected and smaller than Australia.

But getting 12 new surface combatants sometime in 2060 does nothing for our situation right now. Getting even 1 single ship by 2030 does nothing of the immediate crisis right now. The clock has basically run out. The Americans are literally firing missiles from F-22's onto the Chinese from their airspace. There is really an immediate crisis coming towards us (Taiwan), then a longer crisis after that (great power competition between China and the US).

I had hope the SDR would put together an aggressive Calendar of obtainable capabilities that would be adding to the ADF every year between today and 2030. Then a plan for out to 2040. The Navantia offer goes into the former, the BAE offer goes into the later. Neither is a magic bullet.

Lets get real, China has what? ~40-50 Type 52 destroyers? with 48-64 VLS? While Australia isn't the main game, its certainly plausible that a force of a few Chinese ships including one or more Type 052 could turn up in our region. Well actually, they already have, in the Torres Strait, last year. Hassling them with a P8 isn't even a very good grey zone strategy. And neither is an Anzac. With the Hobarts going in for upgrades, there will be less of those as well, so what are we down to then? Cape class? Survey ships?

 

[Stampede]

For BAE proposal. That is great, start work on it. But it isn't going to happen before 2030 and our current crisis is a pre 2030 thing. Its more likely a 2040 thing.

The current threat of our time is China. The key space where the next fight will likely start is Taiwan. China is likely to attempt to invade Taiwan in the 2027-2030 period. That is when they believe they will have enough superiority over the US and its allies, and the capabilities needed to take Taiwan with overwhelming force. Thus BAE offer isn't likely to change the status on that equation.

The Navantia offer is claimed to be deliverable by 2027 with all three by 2029. There might even be scope to increase numbers and decrease timelines (RAND). That does shift the equation around this particular issue. The price, is also attractive, $6b. There is also support from the Spanish Navy for training and crewing and on delivery.

I know there is a lot of fear that more destroyers would mean less Hunters. I'm not sure that is the case. We are in the period of great competition, neither China or the US are going anywhere, post the 2030 period, there are going to be even more tensions regardless of if China attempts to take Taiwan or not. China is likely to increase the tempo of its ship building.

Not only that it is likely by the 2040's we will have started to out grow the first generation Hobarts. 48 VLS sounds like a lot, but if you replace it with 16 large hypersonic missiles, then that is a significant decrease in capability. The Hobarts also have no growth margin for higher energy radars and larger and heavier radars or other things we will definitely want by the 2040's. The ship we really need for the future isn't being built by anyone yet.

These ships will most likely be sold off (just like we have basically done with every ship we have wanted to sell) to a friendly. These will be easy commodities to move on. Most other navies won't be looking at Hypersonics, so a low crew requirement and a decent age ship will be of interest to plenty. But when we are ready and on our terms.

I don't know if the Anzacs can march on to the 2040's or 2050's. They are a limited capability platform, and 2040's is going to be a very different world.

If a war does break out, ship building will be disrupted. Existing platforms will receive heavy use, they will miss maintenance and get warn out. HMAS Anzac will be a 30 year old ship by 2026. It isn't armed with SM-6 or even SM-2 (you know, missiles we are trying to make). That crew could be located on a better and more capable ship. It doesn't have aegis. It doesn't have CEC. It doesn't really even have a CIWS and has basically no layered defence. Its a ship from a different time with a much different fit out. It can't mount the weapons it needs to protect itself.

Our priority should be replacing the Anzacs with a ship that can fire SM-6, SM-2, Tlam, a CIWS, has a proper layered defence, has Aegis, has hawklink, CEC, and is a part of the allied network maritime navy and can share data and weapons between those of the fleet. Anzac has none of that and can't have any of that.

If the worst that happens is we acquire 3 light destroyers, get 20 years of use out of them and then sell then on, that seems like a pretty economic, sensible, low risk compromise given the situation.

For BAE proposal, great, green light it. For sure, we will need 3+ large capable ships in the very near future, and to have those operational and overlapping with the existing Hobart's is fine, the Hobarts can tuck into a secondary role just fine. Ultimately the RAN fleet should move to a ~15-16 surface combatant navy, you know, like Canada has. Or Like Spain has... Or like Korea has... Or like any sensible middle power, even those poorer, better protected and smaller than Australia.

But getting 12 new surface combatants sometime in 2060 does nothing for our situation right now. Getting even 1 single ship by 2030 does nothing of the immediate crisis right now. The clock has basically run out. The Americans are literally firing missiles from F-22's onto the Chinese from their airspace. There is really an immediate crisis coming towards us (Taiwan), then a longer crisis after that (great power competition between China and the US).

I had hope the SDR would put together an aggressive Calendar of obtainable capabilities that would be adding to the ADF every year between today and 2030. Then a plan for out to 2040. The Navantia offer goes into the former, the BAE offer goes into the later. Neither is a magic bullet.

Lets get real, China has what? ~40-50 Type 52 destroyers? with 48-64 VLS? While Australia isn't the main game, its certainly plausible that a force of a few Chinese ships including one or more Type 052 could turn up in our region. Well actually, they already have, in the Torres Strait, last year. Hassling them with a P8 isn't even a very good grey zone strategy. And neither is an Anzac. With the Hobarts going in for upgrades, there will be less of those as well, so what are we down to then? Cape class? Survey ships?

Yep, what will be the focus of the DSR.
This decade or the next?


Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

I have a couple of thoughts on the above, as well as some of the other commentary which has been made here as well as elsewhere on the Internet.

I readily admit to being one of the opponents to the RAN having corvettes. One of the reasons why I oppose corvettes for the RAN is that any such efforts would likely be at the expense of more capable platforms which could actually be of great value to the RAN. Another is that I have serious reservations about whether a combat capable corvette could be brought into RAN service in time.

If one looks at the shipboard systems that the RAN uses (and Australia can support), as well as the existing corvette designs in service around the world, is there any crossover? AFAIK most of the ship systems used by the RAN, and therefore Australia already has supply and support chains in place, are not fitted to existing corvette designs and in some cases could not realistically be made to fit. The current naval gun used by the RAN comes to mind as a good example, with corvette designs most often having a 76mm or smaller gun, which the RAN has retired from service. The main SAM's used by the RAN require a Mk 41 VLS, or the ESSM could utilize the Mk 48 or Mk 56 VLS but neither of those are in RAN service, not to mention that I am uncertain about whether current FSG designs include options for either Mk 48 or Mk 56.

Yes, all of the needed supply chains could be built up, so that a corvette for the RAN could be brought into service, but that would take time as well as resources. With that reality in mind, I would much rather the RAN seek a larger and more capable GP frigate rather than an FSG and TBH I do not think a hypothetical corvette could be brought into RAN service significantly earlier than a hypothetical GP frigate. Yes, it might be possible for Civmec's Henderson facilities involved in building Arafura-class OPV's be stopped short of the ten planned for construction there. However, even if the OPV production run was cut short in favour of the facility producing something else for the RAN, time would be needed to select what design would be built, arrange the detailed design for the vessel's Australian fitout, as well as to place orders and get production started for the shipboard systems which would be required.

As for whether or not the Hunter-class being based off the Type 26 was the 'best' way forward, IMO only time will tell. Also, to be fair, I am not certain that, given the programme requirements, there were any other options which did not have a number of potential risks.

Its a fair comment to ask what is in our current weapons inventory and what is on the fantasy wish list.

As a fantasy suggestion our fleet appears to have a void many other nations don't have in the realm of a short range SAM in the RAM / MICA class of missile.
These missiles are a compliment to, not a substitute to ESSM / RIM-66 sized missiles.

Suggest Phalanx gets moved on ASAP for such a missile capability.

These "relatively light weight" short ranged missile can be installed across a wide range of vessels.

Suggest a gap that needs filling

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

Its a fair comment to ask what is in our current weapons inventory and what is on the fantasy wish list.

As a fantasy suggestion our fleet appears to have a void many other nations don't have in the realm of a short range SAM in the RAM / MICA class of missile.
These missiles are a compliment to, not a substitute to ESSM / RIM-66 sized missiles.

Suggest Phalanx gets moved on ASAP for such a missile capability.

These "relatively light weight" short ranged missile can be installed across a wide range of vessels.

Suggest a gap that needs filling

Cheers S

A major issue with CIWS going forward is using them against Hypersonics. If you hit a large Hypersonic at reasonably close range you face the prospect of being hit by pieces of Missiles still traveling at Mach 5 or 6, a 100kg piece of scrap metal hitting your radar at 5 times the speed of sound is going to mission kill your ship, unspent fuel could start a fire. And you completely negate your decoys and ECM systems.

 

[Todjaeger]

A major issue with CIWS going forward is using them against Hypersonics. If you hit a large Hypersonic at reasonably close range you face the prospect of being hit by pieces of Missiles still traveling at Mach 5 or 6, a 100kg piece of scrap metal hitting your radar at 5 times the speed of sound is going to mission kill your ship, unspent fuel could start a fire. And you completely negate your decoys and ECM systems.

Actually this issue is true for several types of AShM, not just hypersonics. IIRC at one point the USN was able to purchase several ex-Soviet AShM which had Mach 3+ terminal phases, with the USN using the missiles as essentially target drones to test air defence capabilities. From the USN's POV it was a win-win situation, as the cost to acquire and modify the ex-Soviet ordnance was less than the 'normal' cost of the US target drones used to attempt to mimic Soviet AShM, and the missile systems were more difficult to defend against than the drones, which mean that the data collected from using the Soviet AShM was more meaningful.

One takeway for the USN was that in many cases, a Mach 3+ inbound missile would not be complete destroyed by a Mk 15 Phalanx within the 1 km effective range of the CIWS. The missile itself might break up/apart prior to reaching the targeted vessel, but there would be enough missile and debris, with sufficient kinetic energy, to at least mission kill the targeted vessel. IIRC there was also a suspicion that some of the AShM, which were already quite large, would retain sufficient mass and KE to sink or at least compromise a vessel's seaworthiness.

In terms of RAN weapons loadouts for air defence, there might be a case to be made for the RIM-116 RAM, CAMM/Sea Ceptor, or VL MICA, or another equivalent missile and launcher, to be added to the RAN inventory to provide a SHORAD/point-defence missile system. However, one should also keep in mind that with the exception of the last one km around the launching vessel, ESSM can cover a vessel, which means that there could some significant duplication of capability.

 

[ADMk2]

I have a couple of thoughts on the above, as well as some of the other commentary which has been made here as well as elsewhere on the Internet.

I readily admit to being one of the opponents to the RAN having corvettes. One of the reasons why I oppose corvettes for the RAN is that any such efforts would likely be at the expense of more capable platforms which could actually be of great value to the RAN. Another is that I have serious reservations about whether a combat capable corvette could be brought into RAN service in time.

If one looks at the shipboard systems that the RAN uses (and Australia can support), as well as the existing corvette designs in service around the world, is there any crossover? AFAIK most of the ship systems used by the RAN, and therefore Australia already has supply and support chains in place, are not fitted to existing corvette designs and in some cases could not realistically be made to fit. The current naval gun used by the RAN comes to mind as a good example, with corvette designs most often having a 76mm or smaller gun, which the RAN has retired from service. The main SAM's used by the RAN require a Mk 41 VLS, or the ESSM could utilize the Mk 48 or Mk 56 VLS but neither of those are in RAN service, not to mention that I am uncertain about whether current FSG designs include options for either Mk 48 or Mk 56.

Yes, all of the needed supply chains could be built up, so that a corvette for the RAN could be brought into service, but that would take time as well as resources. With that reality in mind, I would much rather the RAN seek a larger and more capable GP frigate rather than an FSG and TBH I do not think a hypothetical corvette could be brought into RAN service significantly earlier than a hypothetical GP frigate. Yes, it might be possible for Civmec's Henderson facilities involved in building Arafura-class OPV's be stopped short of the ten planned for construction there. However, even if the OPV production run was cut short in favour of the facility producing something else for the RAN, time would be needed to select what design would be built, arrange the detailed design for the vessel's Australian fitout, as well as to place orders and get production started for the shipboard systems which would be required.

As for whether or not the Hunter-class being based off the Type 26 was the 'best' way forward, IMO only time will tell. Also, to be fair, I am not certain that, given the programme requirements, there were any other options which did not have a number of potential risks.

Just a quick note - 76mm Oto Melara guns may have been removed from operational RAN vessels with the paying off of the FFG's, but the guns themselves are still in use with the RAN for gunnery training tasks. Corporate knowledge, training and logistical support systems for this weapon still exist. Reintroducing it to surface combatants would be relatively straight-forward, particularly in comparison to the requirements necessary to introduce any "new" medium calibre gun system into service...

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2022-01-05/preparing-battle

 

[ADMk2]

Actually this issue is true for several types of AShM, not just hypersonics. IIRC at one point the USN was able to purchase several ex-Soviet AShM which had Mach 3+ terminal phases, with the USN using the missiles as essentially target drones to test air defence capabilities. From the USN's POV it was a win-win situation, as the cost to acquire and modify the ex-Soviet ordnance was less than the 'normal' cost of the US target drones used to attempt to mimic Soviet AShM, and the missile systems were more difficult to defend against than the drones, which mean that the data collected from using the Soviet AShM was more meaningful.

One takeway for the USN was that in many cases, a Mach 3+ inbound missile would not be complete destroyed by a Mk 15 Phalanx within the 1 km effective range of the CIWS. The missile itself might break up/apart prior to reaching the targeted vessel, but there would be enough missile and debris, with sufficient kinetic energy, to at least mission kill the targeted vessel. IIRC there was also a suspicion that some of the AShM, which were already quite large, would retain sufficient mass and KE to sink or at least compromise a vessel's seaworthiness.

In terms of RAN weapons loadouts for air defence, there might be a case to be made for the RIM-116 RAM, CAMM/Sea Ceptor, or VL MICA, or another equivalent missile and launcher, to be added to the RAN inventory to provide a SHORAD/point-defence missile system. However, one should also keep in mind that with the exception of the last one km around the launching vessel, ESSM can cover a vessel, which means that there could some significant duplication of capability.

True enough with respect to RAN, they have gone all in on ESSM Block I/II for their inner layer defensive missile capability. But when they were initially designing ANZAC ASMD, there was a plan to equip the ANZAC Class with SIMBAD V-SHORAD launch systems (Mistral missile based system) to provide that very close, inner layer anti-air / missile defence capability and a "second channel of fire" capability beside ESSM. The benefit perceived was having their own unique launchers, fire control and guidance that neither interfered with ESSM, nor made demands upon the radar targeting capabilities ESSM requires (being 'standalone' IR guided obviously) yet provided an adjunct anti-air capability and additional anti-surface capability.

The deck positions they were to occupy were ended up being filled with Mini-Typhoon 12.7mm guns due to operational requirements in the MEA for anti-surface craft self-defence as it happened (USS Cole happened...) but RAN was not at all against operating an overlapping missile defence system on-board their ships, with completely separate missile types to address the air and missile defence requirement.

 

[spoz]

I have vague memories (it was 35 years ago) that Mistral was an option on the other Anzac contender, the M type. I don’t remember it being an option on the Meko. Given the financial constraints on what was supposed to be a tier 2, patrol frigate even if it was it would have been unlikely to have had very much chance of ever being taken up during build.

 

[Stampede]

True enough with respect to RAN, they have gone all in on ESSM Block I/II for their inner layer defensive missile capability. But when they were initially designing ANZAC ASMD, there was a plan to equip the ANZAC Class with SIMBAD V-SHORAD launch systems (Mistral missile based system) to provide that very close, inner layer anti-air / missile defence capability and a "second channel of fire" capability beside ESSM. The benefit perceived was having their own unique launchers, fire control and guidance that neither interfered with ESSM, nor made demands upon the radar targeting capabilities ESSM requires (being 'standalone' IR guided obviously) yet provided an adjunct anti-air capability and additional anti-surface capability.

The deck positions they were to occupy were ended up being filled with Mini-Typhoon 12.7mm guns due to operational requirements in the MEA for anti-surface craft self-defence as it happened (USS Cole happened...) but RAN was not at all against operating an overlapping missile defence system on-board their ships, with completely separate missile types to address the air and missile defence requirement.

The Mistral V-SHORAD missile apparently does have a ASM capability.
If true, their range of launching systems are relatively small and lightweight providing options across the fleet
The latest Mistral 3 has a range out to 7 km which is respectable for ship defence.

Their is also the opportunity to mount the weapon with the Typhoon cannon mount.
Potentially a 30mm gun with a five round SAM system.
A handy unit for a wide range inner layer defence against a broad range on contingency's.

Given the popularity of Typhoon across the existing fleet it would present a good option going forward.


Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Just a quick note - 76mm Oto Melara guns may have been removed from operational RAN vessels with the paying off of the FFG's, but the guns themselves are still in use with the RAN for gunnery training tasks. Corporate knowledge, training and logistical support systems for this weapon still exist. Reintroducing it to surface combatants would be relatively straight-forward, particularly in comparison to the requirements necessary to introduce any "new" medium calibre gun system into service...

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2022-01-05/preparing-battle

View attachment 50055

For those who don't know Flinders ( West Head Gunnery Range )is a beautiful part of the world just south of Melbourne.
The house prices are commensurate with this attractive location.
It once had an old fashioned caravan park there which was a please to stay in complete with the sound of the gunnery range near bye.
A very strange combination.
So glad to see navy still defending this part of the world!!!

Cheers S

 

[seaspear]

Im not sure how much meat is on this as because of source

UK agrees historic £2billion nuclear sub deal with Australia

THE UK has agreed to provide Australia with nuclear submarines in the first deal of its kind ever — worth billions to British industry. Ministers are said to be open “in principle” to the idea of …

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[76mmGuns]

Im not sure how much meat is on this as because of source

UK agrees historic £2billion nuclear sub deal with Australia

THE UK has agreed to provide Australia with nuclear submarines in the first deal of its kind ever — worth billions to British industry. Ministers are said to be open “in principle” to the idea of …

www.thesun.co.uk

"Ministers are said to be open “in principle” to the idea of building conventionally-armed nuke-powered subs, like Britain’s Astute Class for them which cost nearly £2billion each. "

That's old news, isn't it?

 

[Redlands18]

Im not sure how much meat is on this as because of source

UK agrees historic £2billion nuclear sub deal with Australia

THE UK has agreed to provide Australia with nuclear submarines in the first deal of its kind ever — worth billions to British industry. Ministers are said to be open “in principle” to the idea of …

www.thesun.co.uk

Do the Topless page 3 girls come with the Subs as well ? That might just swing the decision with most Aussie Submariners.

 

[seaspear]

I thought the problem against this was the present build cycle not allowing this finishing in 2027 at the same time with the Dreadnought class being built ,it could of course be merging with the Astute replacement program of a smaller boat that would be able to operate in areas that very large boats in the archipelagos could not
Britain's New Attack Submarine To Be First With VLS - Naval News