Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

All this talk of tiers and what, constitutes what, also needs to take technological advances into account.

Compare the cruiser HMAS Adelaide, that served in WWII to a Tribal (built during the war), or Battle class destroyer (entered service within five years of the end of the war), then to a Daring class (wartime design, completed post war).

Compare any of them to an Adams/Perth class DDG.

Now compare the DDGs, not to the Hobart's, but to the decidedly tier 2 ANZACs in their current configuration.

Mk-13 with 40 SM-1MR and Harpoon, two Mk-42 5", 3D radar, ASW torpedoes, Ikara (deleted later in life), 2x Phalanx.

Versus 32 ESSM, 8 Harpoon, Typhoon, ASW Torpedoes, helicopter with ASW Torps and Hellfire. On top of that the sensor suite and CMS is incomparable.

Add Block 2 ESSM the new volume search phased array, on top of the previous ASMD upgrades and it is arguably far more capable than than the DDGs that were literally the tier 1 ships in service as the first ANZACs were delivered as tier 2 patrol frigates.

Technology moves on, maybe AEGIS and 30 plus strategic length vls cells is the new minimum.

 

[Todjaeger]

All this talk of tiers and what, constitutes what, also needs to take technological advances into account.

Compare the cruiser HMAS Adelaide, that served in WWII to a Tribal (built during the war), or Battle class destroyer (entered service within five years of the end of the war), then to a Daring class (wartime design, completed post war).

Compare any of them to an Adams/Perth class DDG.

Now compare the DDGs, not to the Hobart's, but to the decidedly tier 2 ANZACs in their current configuration.

Mk-13 with 40 SM-1MR and Harpoon, two Mk-42 5", 3D radar, ASW torpedoes, Ikara (deleted later in life), 2x Phalanx.

Versus 32 ESSM, 8 Harpoon, Typhoon, ASW Torpedoes, helicopter with ASW Torps and Hellfire. On top of that the sensor suite and CMS is incomparable.

Add Block 2 ESSM the new volume search phased array, on top of the previous ASMD upgrades and it is arguably far more capable than than the DDGs that were literally the tier 1 ships in service as the first ANZACs were delivered as tier 2 patrol frigates.

Technology moves on, maybe AEGIS and 30 plus strategic length vls cells is the new minimum.

The other thing which gets me, is that we still have not to my knowledge, had gov't describe what would constitute a Tier 1 or Tier 2 vessel. Pretty much the only thing we have to go on, is a statement (by Marles, I think...) that other navies are moving towards larger numbers of 'smaller' combatants, which is a statement I question the accuracy of, absent an explanation of what and why a combatant might be considered 'smaller'.

 

[Volkodav]

The other thing which gets me, is that we still have not to my knowledge, had gov't describe what would constitute a Tier 1 or Tier 2 vessel. Pretty much the only thing we have to go on, is a statement (by Marles, I think...) that other navies are moving towards larger numbers of 'smaller' combatants, which is a statement I question the accuracy of, absent an explanation of what and why a combatant might be considered 'smaller'.

To be honest, the only way he could say that is if he was assuming the frigates being procured by various nations are being bought instead of destroyers. The reality is however, although they may be following destroyers through the shipyard order books, they are replacing, smaller, older frigates and corvettes.

 

[Todjaeger]

To be honest, the only way he could say that is if he was assuming the frigates being procured by various nations are being bought instead of destroyers. The reality is however, although they may be following destroyers through the shipyard order books, they are replacing, smaller, older frigates and corvettes.

The other possible explanation might be that he was referring to orders placed by other navies for frigates which are smaller and/or have a lower displacement than is planned for the Hunter-class frigates.

Either way, I think what he said was at best stretching the truth.

 

[devo99]

Ironically the TNI-AL (Indonesian Navy) is getting a couple AH140s built at the moment with various plans for Mogamis and FREMMs on the drawing board. So our closest significant neighbour is going bigger which will have implications for all those "regionally superior"s we like to put in our requirements.

 

[Brissy1982]

All this talk of tiers and what, constitutes what, also needs to take technological advances into account.

Compare the cruiser HMAS Adelaide, that served in WWII to a Tribal (built during the war), or Battle class destroyer (entered service within five years of the end of the war), then to a Daring class (wartime design, completed post war).

Compare any of them to an Adams/Perth class DDG.

Now compare the DDGs, not to the Hobart's, but to the decidedly tier 2 ANZACs in their current configuration.

Mk-13 with 40 SM-1MR and Harpoon, two Mk-42 5", 3D radar, ASW torpedoes, Ikara (deleted later in life), 2x Phalanx.

Versus 32 ESSM, 8 Harpoon, Typhoon, ASW Torpedoes, helicopter with ASW Torps and Hellfire. On top of that the sensor suite and CMS is incomparable.

Add Block 2 ESSM the new volume search phased array, on top of the previous ASMD upgrades and it is arguably far more capable than than the DDGs that were literally the tier 1 ships in service as the first ANZACs were delivered as tier 2 patrol frigates.

Technology moves on, maybe AEGIS and 30 plus strategic length vls cells is the new minimum.

Totally agree - technological advances over time definitely affect what may be considered Tier 1 or Tier 2. What the Anzac-class frigates have today in terms of AAW, ASW and ASuW capability is well ahead of the Perth-class DDGs, as good as the Perths were for their time, even though the Anzacs were originally intended as patrol frigates.

What can be considered Tier 1 or Tier 2 is also affected by what other nations are deploying, especially those nations that our forces are tasked with deterring, and if necessary fighting. Compared to the PLA-N Type 055 DDGs, our Hobart-class DDGs are woefully out-gunned. That is also true when the Hobarts are compared to the USN Burke-class DDGs (especially as Flight III begins to enter service) and their Japanese and South Korean derivatives. When both friendly nations and potential enemies are deploying DDGs that are much larger, faster and far more heavily armed than our own, the inescapable conclusion is that Australia has been left far behind in terms of surface combatant capability by decades of under-investment and poor planning. All we can hope is that the RAN isn't required to fight in a full-scale conflict against the PRC until we can get new, more potent vessels into service.

 

[OldNavy63]

The CCP continues to gain influence in PNG and the Solomon Islands with Belt and Road Initiatives, medical support teams and naval visits. ( Chinese naval training ship arrives in PNG for goodwill visit ).

A Chinese fish-processing plant was proposed on PNG’s Daru Island several years ago and Chinese fishing vessels appear to have commenced operating in the area ( Chinese ships in Alotau part of a fisheries trial deal - Post Courier and https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-10/png-daru-fishing-park-china-australia-tensions-james-marape/13136188 ).

We have all witnessed aggressive manoeuvring by Chinese Coast Guard units and Maritime Militia fishing vessels off the Philippines and also directing laser beams at HMAS Canberra during IPE-2019 ( https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/how-chinas-maritime-militia-takes-advantage-of-the-grey-zone/ ).

Compared to (my era,) Attack class patrol boats (107.5 feet of Fighting Fury), the new Arafura class OPVs are veritable leviathans, however, with only a 25mm Typhoon as main armament they will not be equipped to deter any “argy-bargy” in grey zone operations to our north.

When that poor old can finally stops being kicked further down the road, we will need 12 x Tier 1 AWD / Hunter and six ocean-going Tier 2 patrol frigates (A140) - but can our OPVs please have a proper main gun (min. 57mm), that give off a commensurate BANG !

 

[Volkodav]

I am wondering if the naval review may contain a fundamental change in the concept most Australians have of the RAN.

The term escort is still used a lot, as is the concept of RAN escorting convoys, and capital ships. The idea we need lots of medium and, preferably, small escorts, as well as lots of constabulary vessels that we pretend are warships.

Since the retirement of the carrier, arguably even before then, RAN major combatants, have predominantly participated in independent operations. Yes they do escort the LHDs and slot into US CBGs etc. But mostly, they operate, as did the cruisers of old, on independent or squadron sized operations.

The public/media/political classes persist in thinking numbers of cheap or cheaper ships, task force and convoy escorts, fleet actions, supported by patrol boats.

Geography, budget, personnel numbers and strategic environment suggests large, individually capable ships, capable of independent operations, but also suitable for concentrating and providing mutual and complementary support.

We will never spend enough to maintain enough ships to sustain a surface action group, escort group or hunter killer group, let alone multiples of them.

Even in WWII at maximum effort, we never achieved this. So why sacrifice individual capability to "afford" the numbers (we will never achieve) to support "groups" when we know our ships will only ever operate alone or in very small groups?

Pre WWI the RAN was built around a "Fleet Unit" a concoction of Jackie Fisher's. Then post WWI it was rebuilt around a RN escort group structure. Neither was a fit for how we actually used our ships in peace or war.

We used our big ships (and sometimes our small ships) predominantly on independent operations, or integrated them entirely into allied formations. We still do.

We can't ever assume our ships will only operate with mutual or task force support. There is absolutely zero point buying or building anything designed primarily for task force or fleet operations.

We don't need fleet cruisers, fleet destroyers, escorts, single role frigates, specialist ships. We need modern day equivalents to battlecruisers, heavy cruisers and sloops. That is, ships designed for independent operations, over long distances, not the modern day equivalents to fleet cruisers, fleet destroyers and convoy escorts.

We need ships capable of trade protection, response, sea control and denial, ie presence, as opposed to escort and fleet support.

The battlecruiser Australia, the Town and County Class cruisers, even the Tribal, Battle and Daring Class large destroyers, as well as the sloops, fit the model of ships designed for independent operations over long ranges. As do the ANZACs, and the Hunters. They have been bigger, more powerful, longer legged, more independent, than their opposition equivalents.

Pretty much everything else we have operated does not. Even when they have had the multi role capabilities, sensors, command and control capability, they have lacked the legs and firepower required. I include the DDGs (including Hobarts) and FFGs in this, as I do the DEs, WWII frigates and corvettes, as well as the various fleet destroyers, Rivers, S&T, V&W, N, Q. Too small, to specialised, designed to support and be supported by other ships we did not have.

The problem with the ANZACs and the Hunters is they needed that higher level ship, that proper cruiser, to complement them.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We could probably get what we want if we for go things.

The RAN has two helicopter LHD ships, every other ship now has the capability to embark air drones, and/or manned helicopters. We also have a shortage of helicopters, not as bad as we previously had, but not so much that every new platform need to have a single or double helicopter embarked.

Does our major surface combatant also need to be able to embark manned helicopter? Is that a requirement if it precludes it from its main mission which is another ~64 VLS? Particularly given the Canberra class has no air defence capability and will need to be escorted everywhere it goes anyway?

How bad and how destructive was acquiring a Hobart class without 2 helicopter hangars? Do we now look back and think we should have reduced to the VLS load out to 16 or 24VLS to allow two helicopters? Helicopters are valuable, but do we have a balanced fleet.

An OPV makes a good replacement for a patrol boat. Its nearly 10 times the volume. Its so big now, it can easily organically embark a helicopter, which would drastically improve its capability as a OPV. But we specifically built an OPV that didn't embark Helicopters, because that is what we want our larger ships to do.

But our major surface combatants have been getting smaller and less capable or staying the same size. Generally what tends to happen is we loose the tier of capability above, we lost battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, cruisers, heavy destroyers, destroyers, now are current destroyers are frigates.

The problem with the ANZACs and the Hunters is they needed that higher level ship, that proper cruiser, to complement them.

The implication was the US or the UK would always furnish that. Well that is no longer the case, the US is getting rid of the cruisers, is over committed on its destroyers, and the UK has a limited destroyer capability and a very limited land strike capability. We can no longer be over reliant on our powerful friends doing all the heavy lifting. The US can basically be matched in the pacific 1 for 1 by the opposition.

We need capability and not a platform. If the platform can't deliver the capability, then we have achieved nothing.

 

[BPFP]

We could probably get what we want if we for go things.

The RAN has two helicopter LHD ships, every other ship now has the capability to embark air drones, and/or manned helicopters. We also have a shortage of helicopters, not as bad as we previously had, but not so much that every new platform need to have a single or double helicopter embarked.

Does our major surface combatant also need to be able to embark manned helicopter? Is that a requirement if it precludes it from its main mission which is another ~64 VLS? Particularly given the Canberra class has no air defence capability and will need to be escorted everywhere it goes anyway?

How bad and how destructive was acquiring a Hobart class without 2 helicopter hangars? Do we now look back and think we should have reduced to the VLS load out to 16 or 24VLS to allow two helicopters? Helicopters are valuable, but do we have a balanced fleet.

An OPV makes a good replacement for a patrol boat. Its nearly 10 times the volume. Its so big now, it can easily organically embark a helicopter, which would drastically improve its capability as a OPV. But we specifically built an OPV that didn't embark Helicopters, because that is what we want our larger ships to do.

But our major surface combatants have been getting smaller and less capable or staying the same size. Generally what tends to happen is we loose the tier of capability above, we lost battlecruisers, heavy cruisers, cruisers, heavy destroyers, destroyers, now are current destroyers are frigates.


The implication was the US or the UK would always furnish that. Well that is no longer the case, the US is getting rid of the cruisers, is over committed on its destroyers, and the UK has a limited destroyer capability and a very limited land strike capability. We can no longer be over reliant on our powerful friends doing all the heavy lifting. The US can basically be matched in the pacific 1 for 1 by the opposition.

We need capability and not a platform. If the platform can't deliver the capability, then we have achieved nothing.

Not to discount your main point, but I recall Navantia offered to change the F100 design to accommodate 2 helicopters, without reducing missile loadout, when the initial order was made. The Aus govt did not proceed with that owing to the time it would have added to the acquisition process. Sorry, I don't have sources for this .... just remember from reports at the time.

 

[MickB]

Would an Australian commander sail through those choke points without intel they are clear of threat? I would say no. I’m not sure why anyone thinks a Chinese commander would differ.

I think in this statement you make his point for him. You don't need to fire a missile or hit the target, the mere threat of such a missile is enough to at some level dictate an enemys actions.

 

[Volkodav]

Basically what I am saying is steel is cheap and air is free.

Capability is derived through a system of systems, this includes, not just the weapons, sensors etc. but the platform.

AEGIS is AEGIS whether its fitted to a big ship or a small one. An MH-60R is an MH-60R irrespective of what it flies off. SM-6 is SM-6, ESSM is ESSM etc. etc. The thing is, the smaller and tighter the platform, the bigger/greater the compromise. That's when you need to start deleting VLS cells to fit a second helicopter, that's when you need to reduce the size and height of your radars, that's when you need to reduce range and speed (cruising and maximum). That's when you need to delete, or never design in entire capabilities.

These compromises are capability gaps, you either need to live with them, or acquire another, complementary capability to fill them.

It is more expensive in crewing, operating costs, and acquisition costs, to acquire and sustain complementary capabilities. This results in the complementary capability being stretched into a more GP function and then your numbers, instead of being made up of a greater number of compromised 1st tier ships and complementary 2nd tier ships, is capped at less than is required.

There was at one time a plan to buy/build ten FFGs to serve along side the DDGs. I believe there was still a desire to acquire a Corvette or light frigate/destroyer to supplement this force.

Forgetting the corvettes, imagine we had three Perths and ten Adelaide's in the 90s ( no ANZACs, no attempt to increase MFU numbers to 16 or 17), replaced the Perth's with three Flight 2A Burke's then replaced the FFGs, one for one with F-100s, FREMMs or similar (an AEGIS F-124?).

Maybe change the mix, five Burke's, eight FFG replacements?

To expensive? Well no draw down in the fleet means no loss of crews, continuous build in Williamstown of six FFG, three or five DDG, then eight or ten FFG replacements.

Yes a coulda, shoulda, woulda, but also an example of how different things could be if not for the smaller, cheaper, more mantra.

 

[Volkodav]

Not to discount your main point, but I recall Navantia offered to change the F100 design to accommodate 2 helicopters, without reducing missile loadout, when the initial order was made. The Aus govt did not proceed with that owing to the time it would have added to the acquisition process. Sorry, I don't have sources for this .... just remember from reports at the time.

They offered a second helicopter and 64 VLS cells. But we stuck to our bastardised Kinard system and refused to change the baseline F-104.

 

[BPFP]

They offered a second helicopter and 64 VLS cells. But we stuck to our bastardised Kinard system and refused to change the baseline F-104.

Imagine how different all of the current discussions on fleet composition if we'd ordered 6 of those, with the added benefit of having avoided the valley of depth and benefitting from lower unit costs.

 

[Bob53]

I think in this statement you make his point for him. You don't need to fire a missile or hit the target, the mere threat of such a missile is enough to at some level dictate an enemys actions.

Yes but my point was not about the ships but that any System located far out of Australia is not just a truck with missiles. if An enemy suspects a threat they don’t just go hang on those guys have got guns. Let’s stay home. If they suspect… no. Someone like China would know that a threat capability is located and they will drum up a way to remove the threat.

So we have NASAMs or Tomahawk launchers sitting on an island somewhere. We managed to get them there ok. what next?

It requires a significant number of support roles and logistics otherwise it becomes easy for a SOF or missiles to come in and knock it out once the threat is identified. No Shorad..they come in by air. No Security element… makes life easy for sea insertion in small boats. If it was china they would just send a strike package with missiles. What was the name of Australia’s Shorad system that could knock out an attack with say a dozen simultaneous incoming cruise missiles and how would we be shipping that SHORAD to the same island ?Whats the logistics required to transport the SHORAD system? In another Herc? I’m not sure how many troops this adds up to be now but to me it’s looking to be about 100 or more.

They need fuel, food c2, security elements …just carry a single missile load out? Or are there additional loads being carried. How is that getting there? Another Herc?. and all these elements don’t just walk to the launch site. They need transport. another Herc. how long are they staying for?

The way this capability is spruiked it’s we can just insert it where we feel it’s needed and surprise the enemy. Pull the other one. So my point is the Army doesn’t seem to have the capacity to support this type of mission far from Australia. unlike the USMC and Army that have far greater capacity to deploy, sustain, manoeuvre and extract. If it was possible to land and extract with the element of surprise that might be different but it’s a lot of money and people to put on that horse at what I think is long odds.

I can see some merit in the weapons systems being used from the mainland where we have depth and other support if we wanted to keep enemy ship far away but again I would think the RAAF would be better at this.

 

[devo99]

The public/media/political classes persist in thinking numbers of cheap or cheaper ships, task force and convoy escorts, fleet actions, supported by patrol boats.

Geography, budget, personnel numbers and strategic environment suggests large, individually capable ships, capable of independent operations, but also suitable for concentrating and providing mutual and complementary support.

We will never spend enough to maintain enough ships to sustain a surface action group, escort group or hunter killer group, let alone multiples of them.

Even in WWII at maximum effort, we never achieved this. So why sacrifice individual capability to "afford" the numbers (we will never achieve) to support "groups" when we know our ships will only ever operate alone or in very small groups?

Pre WWI the RAN was built around a "Fleet Unit" a concoction of Jackie Fisher's. Then post WWI it was rebuilt around a RN escort group structure. Neither was a fit for how we actually used our ships in peace or war.

We used our big ships (and sometimes our small ships) predominantly on independent operations, or integrated them entirely into allied formations. We still do.

In the absence of carriers the RAN has always been a SAG-centric Navy. We were the only Commonwealth Navy aside from the RN itself that invested in a cruiser force prior to WW2 (The RNZN and RCN only got theirs in 1941 and 1944 respectively). Notably every other major navy either has carriers or has planned its fleet around fitting into a broader structure (NATO, JMSDF, etc.) nobody has tried actively pushing for SAG capability in decades, instead navies like the USN have made it a secondary role of their primary escorts. The term "cruiser" means relatively little in the age where everything down to frigates has area air defence and command facilities. It could be interpreted, as the Russians do, to be a ship designed specifically around sinking enemy surface ships rather than escorting. How the RAN would go about developing such a relatively unique capability I'm not sure but it's food for thought.

Well that is no longer the case, the US is getting rid of the cruisers, is over committed on its destroyers,

The Ticonderogas were ordered as destroyers but reclassified as cruisers to appease congress which at the time was having a cow about the Soviets having more actual cruisers (a result of them having to rely on SAGs due to a lack of proper carriers). The last ships that were ordered and laid down as cruisers were the Slava-class which entered service almost 41 years ago.

 

[peterAustralia]

Ahem

What is SAG

Nevermind ... surface action group.. for the benefit of others of course

 

[Morgo]

Yes but my point was not about the ships but that any System located far out of Australia is not just a truck with missiles. if An enemy suspects a threat they don’t just go hang on those guys have got guns. Let’s stay home. If they suspect… no. Someone like China would know that a threat capability is located and they will drum up a way to remove the threat.

So we have NASAMs or Tomahawk launchers sitting on an island somewhere. We managed to get them there ok. what next?

It requires a significant number of support roles and logistics otherwise it becomes easy for a SOF or missiles to come in and knock it out once the threat is identified. No Shorad..they come in by air. No Security element… makes life easy for sea insertion in small boats. If it was china they would just send a strike package with missiles. What was the name of Australia’s Shorad system that could knock out an attack with say a dozen simultaneous incoming cruise missiles and how would we be shipping that SHORAD to the same island ?Whats the logistics required to transport the SHORAD system? In another Herc? I’m not sure how many troops this adds up to be now but to me it’s looking to be about 100 or more.

They need fuel, food c2, security elements …just carry a single missile load out? Or are there additional loads being carried. How is that getting there? Another Herc?. and all these elements don’t just walk to the launch site. They need transport. another Herc. how long are they staying for?

The way this capability is spruiked it’s we can just insert it where we feel it’s needed and surprise the enemy. Pull the other one. So my point is the Army doesn’t seem to have the capacity to support this type of mission far from Australia. unlike the USMC and Army that have far greater capacity to deploy, sustain, manoeuvre and extract. If it was possible to land and extract with the element of surprise that might be different but it’s a lot of money and people to put on that horse at what I think is long odds.

I can see some merit in the weapons systems being used from the mainland where we have depth and other support if we wanted to keep enemy ship far away but again I would think the RAAF would be better at this.

Isn’t this exactly why we’re refreshing the C-130 fleet and investing heavily in small to medium size amphibious craft?

 

[Redlands18]

Ahem

What is SAG

Nevermind ... surface action group.. for the benefit of others of course

With most Frigates over 2500t today having the firepower of a WW2 Battleship (at least quality wise) with modern SSMs, the need for SAGs has become redundant.

 

[devo99]

With most Frigates over 2500t today having the firepower of a WW2 Battleship (at least quality wise) with modern SSMs, the need for SAGs has become redundant.

I think the idea of a modern SAG would be bringing the quantity of SSMs as well. Currently USN SAGs are made up of Ticonderogas and Burkes which are designed primarily around air defence against SSMs and BMs for carrier escorting and most of the sinking of enemy ships is intended to be done by subs, carrier aircraft and the sheer number of escorts. Of those options the RAN only has a somewhat restricted submarine capability. It would make sense if the RAN were intending to deploy SAGs for it's ships to have more than the usual amount of ship sinking power as a result of not having the number of ships or carrier power of the USN. The big factor holding the RAN back in this area aside from not currently fielding extra long range SSMs like TASM and SM-6 (yes it's a fully capable AShM too) is over the horizon ISR for providing targeting to such long ranged weapons.