Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stuart M]

The speculation is getting tedious ? Yet you quote a news paper article that quotes a supposed "classified" document that states Defence is unhappy with the Hunters ? Huh Then you claim that as factual, where is the link to the Defence document that supports your speculation ?

Waiting ?

I dont know what you know about how media operate, but I'm sure you've heard the phrase about not revealing sources. I am also quite sure that you are aware that directly revealing that document could comprise those source's , and as you have or have had a government clearance, as I do, so you know what the rules are in that.
Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of the articles author or the defence spokeswoman? I have posted a link to an article where defence admit that this document is real, I have posted excerpts it here.
If you wish to confirm the story, go confirm it with the journalist .
I'm sure they will be happy to entertain you questioning their integrity.

 

[ADMk2]

No, I didn't miss your point, the point that does matter is that neither you nor I are in a position to say if the design can accept more VLS tubes in that position, at which point all the radars cms and power generation stuff you mentioned is moot.

I honestly think that this talk about extra this or that on the Hunters is just fantasy stuff, and I don't know why it's even discussed as none of us here can know what those ships are going to look like until the things are built, and those that do cannot say.

Seeing as though we are relying on media reporting of defence “sources” here, we have defence publicly on record confirming the Hunter class design as is, is intended to hold more VLS cells (than the existing 32x) ‘if necessary’. So let’s just put this nonsense to bed once and for all, shall we?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/hunterclass-will-deliver-greater-lethality/news-story/87827f11675569cd22d87f4545ce8a91?amp&nk=a6eede5708ed10eb52fd480aa6d839f2-1693326588

 

[Meriv90]

I'm sorry but I'm not understanding why you cannot trust BAE if they say they can put 100-150 vls.

You trusted them with a paper design during the SEA5000.

And now that T26 are at least in the water, thus BAE should have way more data and solved already the on the road problems, you suddenly stop trusting them?

That's just dissonant.

Even worse considering all the work you did, already, in Australia to give it AAW capabilities!

 

[John Fedup]

The T26 VLS discussion is getting tiresome. Australia, Canada, and the UK required a very capable ASW frigate and the T-26 should do well here. SLOC choke points are very vulnerable to subs so a combination of excellent ASW frigates and subs will address this threat, especially for the UK and Australia. Even with only 24 VLS, the CSC version along with its CAMM fit out greatly exceeds our current capabilities. The UK has has its T-45s so 24 VLS will do (for now). Same for the CSC due to geography and primarily supporting USN CSGs. Agree, Australia should have 32 given the threat environment. Anymore might be problematic, at least for the first batch. In a perfect world, a CAN-AU-UK T-83 project with each country ordering 4 ships could address VLS capability….I know, a bit of fantasy, especially at the Canadian end.

 

[Redlands18]

The T26 VLS discussion is getting tiresome. Australia, Canada, and the UK required a very capable ASW frigate and the T-26 should do well here. SLOC choke points are very vulnerable to subs so a combination of excellent ASW frigates and subs will address this threat, especially for the UK and Australia. Even with only 24 VLS, the CSC version along with its CAMM fit out greatly exceeds our current capabilities. The UK has has its T-45s so 24 VLS will do (for now). Same for the CSC due to geography and primarily supporting USN CSGs. Agree, Australia should have 32 given the threat environment. Anymore might be problematic, at least for the first batch. In a perfect world, a CAN-AU-UK T-83 project with each country ordering 4 ships could address VLS capability….I know, a bit of fantasy, especially at the Canadian end.

At thirty-two Mk41 VLS, the Hunters would have to give up at least eight for self-defence only (32 ESSM), the other two don't have to give up Mk41 cells for self-defence, so in a roundabout way, all three carry the same quantity of VLS.

 

[John Fedup]

At thirty-two Mk41 VLS, the Hunters would have to give up at least eight for self-defence only (32 ESSM), the other two don't have to give up Mk41 cells for self-defence, so in a roundabout way, all three carry the same quantity of VLS.

I doubt the RCN wouldn't have a few VLS loaded with ESSM2, depending on mission. The more interesting question is how much is a future government willing to fund SM6s and SM3s. With BM defence being an increasing concern for the US, having CSC vessels equipped with SM3s working in conjunction with NORAD would make political points with US politicians who are not happy with Canadian defence expenditures.

 

[Redlands18]

I doubt the RCN wouldn't have a few VLS loaded with ESSM2, depending on mission. The more interesting question is how much is a future government willing to fund SM6s and SM3s. With BM defence being an increasing concern for the US, having CSC vessels equipped with SM3s working in conjunction with NORAD would make political points with US politicians who are not happy with Canadian defence expenditures.

The latest ESSM Block 2 has a range in excess of 50km which gives it a decent Area AD capability, so they could be carried instead of SM-2, also the 4 to 1 ratio will make the ESSM attractive in the Area role. The point I am trying to make is that, whereas a CSC or City class commander could exhaust his Mk41 cells and still have the CAMM to fall back on for self defence, a Hunter commander needs to retain some ESSM for self-defence.

 

[Todjaeger]

I doubt the RCN wouldn't have a few VLS loaded with ESSM2, depending on mission. The more interesting question is how much is a future government willing to fund SM6s and SM3s. With BM defence being an increasing concern for the US, having CSC vessels equipped with SM3s working in conjunction with NORAD would make political points with US politicians who are not happy with Canadian defence expenditures.

OTOH though, the RCN can field Sea Ceptor which is a smaller missile albeit with a comparable role as ESSM. IMO it would not make a whole lot to sense to fit SM-series missiles, ESSM/ESSM Block II, Sea Ceptor and a possible ER version which has similar range to ESSM/ESSM Block II. Questions which would remain is whether or not any ER version of Sea Ceptor would still fit into the Sea Ceptor cells, which might not be the case depending on cell length. IIRC the CAMM-ER version is supposed to have a range of ~45 km, which does measure nicely against the 50+ km range of ESSM.

However, even with ~50 km ranged air defence missiles, that is still only getting into a medium-ranged air defence missile, whilst MR and ER versions of the SM-2 can get out to between 70 km and 370 km, so SM-3 (SM-2, SM-2; D'Oh!) and ESSM/Sea Ceptor are really more complimentary capabilities. However, to really make proper usage of such long-ranged area air defence missiles, some sort of AEW capability would likely be needed, though embarked naval helicopters with certain surveillance radars could provide some additional sensing.

EDIT: Fixed something, because apparently I cannot properly read, think and type either...

 

[StingrayOZ]

OTOH though, the RCN can field Sea Ceptor which is a smaller missile albeit with a comparable role as ESSM. IMO it would not make a whole lot to sense to fit SM-series missiles, ESSM/ESSM Block II, Sea Ceptor and a possible ER version which has similar range to ESSM/ESSM Block II.

Not sure ESSMII replaces SM.

However, even with ~50 km ranged air defence missiles, that is still only getting into a medium-ranged air defence missile, whilst MR and ER versions of the SM-2 can get out to between 70 km and 370 km, so SM-3 and ESSM/Sea Ceptor are really more complimentary capabilities.

Not sure SM-3 ESSM/Sea Ceptor is that complimentary. Pretty big hole between CAMM/ESSM and SM-3. Sm-3 is designed around exo-atmospheric threats.

However, to really make proper usage of such long-ranged area air defence missiles, some sort of AEW capability would likely be needed, though embarked naval helicopters with certain surveillance radars could provide some additional sensing.

Which is why having a sensor networks that are fully integrated with each other, space, OTHR, AEW, ship based sensors etc is so important. A lot of work has been put into making weapons able to find targets with minimal information. With OTHR you will know something is in the vicinity, or when something is being fired, but it won't provide accurate targeting for legacy munitions. But that is less important if your munitions are self guiding and fairly smart in capability. Some will be good enough to take out the launch platform (ship/plane) with minimal data, but intercepting the munition may be much harder as they are much smaller, stealthier, running more aggressive flight profiles .

Air platforms launching Yj-12 or the like would likely be a very challenging situation for a ship running a defence of just CAMM/ESSM. Sm-3 wouldn't be any help either. SM-3 doesn't even have an explosive warhead.

You also have issues of minimum engagement envelopes.

Australia is going to have issues deploying munitions like SM-3 and TLAM and perhaps advancements in SM-6.

Generally BMD requires multiple ships fusing data together with something like a AEW.
In the future it may no longer be possible to get enough of a radar horizon with just one ship. While missiles are getting longer ranged, they aren't really any faster.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not sure ESSMII replaces SM.

Not sure SM-3 ESSM/Sea Ceptor is that complimentary. Pretty big hole between CAMM/ESSM and SM-3. Sm-3 is designed around exo-atmospheric threats.



Which is why having a sensor networks that are fully integrated with each other, space, OTHR, AEW, ship based sensors etc is so important. A lot of work has been put into making weapons able to find targets with minimal information. With OTHR you will know something is in the vicinity, or when something is being fired, but it won't provide accurate targeting for legacy munitions. But that is less important if your munitions are self guiding and fairly smart in capability. Some will be good enough to take out the launch platform (ship/plane) with minimal data, but intercepting the munition may be much harder as they are much smaller, stealthier, running more aggressive flight profiles .

Air platforms launching Yj-12 or the like would likely be a very challenging situation for a ship running a defence of just CAMM/ESSM. Sm-3 wouldn't be any help either. SM-3 doesn't even have an explosive warhead.

You also have issues of minimum engagement envelopes.

Australia is going to have issues deploying munitions like SM-3 and TLAM and perhaps advancements in SM-6.

Generally BMD requires multiple ships fusing data together with something like a AEW.
In the future it may no longer be possible to get enough of a radar horizon with just one ship. While missiles are getting longer ranged, they aren't really any faster.

You might want to slow down and re-read a little... I mentioned the SM-2 MR/ER versions, not SM-3 which is intended for a different type of target.

So we would be talking about an outer engagement envelope covered by SM-2 (or possibly even some versions of the SM-1 or SM-6) with max ranges varying between 70+ km and nearly 400 km, to an inner defensive layer covered by ESSM and/or Sea Ceptor/CAMM/CAMM-ER, which would max out at ~50 km. Depending on which inner layer missile was fitted, there might be a min engagement range of ~1km, with this sort of 'gap' being at least partially covered by rapid fire guns and//or CIWS.

Getting SM-3 only makes sense if one is seeking an ABM or anti-sat capability.

 

[spoz]

Well, actually at present the post reads , so SM-3 and ESSM/Sea Ceptor are really more complimentary capabilities, although given the difference in capabilities, and the direction of the discussion, I assumed that it was a typo......

 

[Todjaeger]

Well, actually at present the post reads , so SM-3 and ESSM/Sea Ceptor are really more complimentary capabilities, although given the difference in capabilities, and the direction of the discussion, I assumed that it was a typo......

D'Oh! Previous sentence had me mentioning SM-2 MR/ER, must have fat-fingered the 3 instead of 2. Talk about hoisted on one's own petard...

I will now sign off for the night since it is obviously past my bedtime.

 

[ngatimozart]

Purchase of sea mines announced:

Australian Defence Force to purchase smart sea mines | Defence

"The quantity and types of sea mines that Defence will acquire remain classified."

I see that SH Defence has released a new modular mine laying system that doesn't require dedicated mine laying ships.

Aimed at no one in particular.
Stop obsessing about the VLS compliment of the Hunter Class. It is getting very tiresome and repetitive. When the official info is released we will all know.

 

[AndyinOz]

A very interesting concept that as stated in the interview does not require a dedicated platform exclusive to mine laying to be used. The fact that it was stated that the system is compatible with the Rheinmetall MANTA makes it all the more desirable I imagine given the contract with RWM Italia the provision of smart mines. Technology transfer that was apparently also part of the agreement to all local manufacture makes perhaps putting these two together quite an appealing proposition.

 

[JohnJT]

...to an inner defensive layer covered by ESSM and/or Sea Ceptor/CAMM/CAMM-ER, which would max out at ~50 km.

I apologize for this being off topic but since missile ranges of CAMM and CAMM-ER are being discussed it might be of interest that Poland and MBDA UK are jointly developing a new version of CAMM called CAMM-MR which will have a range >100km.

The UK and Poland will develop the CAMM-MR anti-aircraft missile with a launch range of over 100 kilometres and a speed of over 1,000 metres per second

Poland and the UK are joining forces to develop an anti-aircraft missile based on the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM). The new development is called CAMM-MR.

gagadget.com

 

[Sierra Mike]

I apologize for this being off topic but since missile ranges of CAMM and CAMM-ER are being discussed it might be of interest that Poland and MBDA UK are jointly developing a new version of CAMM called CAMM-MR which will have a range >100km.

Of interest to the RAN? Unlikely.

Current RAN inventory is ESSM / SM-2 MR / SM-6 (planned). Already deployed. The range of the development CAMM above falls smack in the middle of SM-2MR capabilities. Why expand the necessary training and support requirements for something that offers little above what's already in service?

edit as per correction below...

 

[DDG38]

Meanwhile, the fleet has been busy the past few months doing real Navy stuff and too busy to speculate on coulda woulda shoulda scenarios.
"HMAS Anzac sails in company with HMAS Canberra during Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2023." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"Exercise Malabar 2023 task group ships in formation off the coast of New South Wales. The task group comprised HMAS Brisbane, HMAS Choules, INS Kolkata, INS Sahyadri, JS Shiranui, USS Rafael Peralta and a United States Navy submarine." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"The Governor of Western Australia, His Excellency the Honourable Christopher John Dawson, AC, APM, receives a Royal Salute from the HMAS Perth Guard during the award ceremony held to present the 2022 Duke of Gloucester Cup to HMAS Perth at Fleet Base West in Western Australia." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"(Front to Back) INS Vagir, HMAS Rankin and HMAS Perth conduct manoeuvre exercise at the Western Australian Exercise Area during the Indian Submarine INS Vagir visit to Fleet Base West in Perth, Western Australia." Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[ADMk2]

Of interest to the RAN? Unlikely.

Current RAN inventory is ESSM / SM-2 MR / SM-6. Already deployed. The range of the development CAMM above falls smack in the middle of SM-2MR capabilities. Why expand the necessary training and support requirements for something that offers little above what's already in service?

Since when is SM-6 “currently” in the RAN inventory?

 

[Sierra Mike]

Since when is SM-6 “currently” in the RAN inventory?

noted... SM6 planned...

in my haste to reply I missed this key point... sorry.

 

[swerve]

OTOH though, the RCN can field Sea Ceptor which is a smaller missile albeit with a comparable role as ESSM. IMO it would not make a whole lot to sense to fit SM-series missiles, ESSM/ESSM Block II, Sea Ceptor and a possible ER version which has similar range to ESSM/ESSM Block II. ...

CAMM-ER isn't "a possible ER version which has similar range to ESSM". It exists. Test firings to qualify it have been done, It's on order for the Italian army & AF & an unnamed foreign customer (thought to be Pakistan IIRC).

The possible extended range version is CAMM-MR, a proposed >100 km range joint development by the UK & Poland.