Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Anthony_B_78]

I am concerned that we are getting so far behind with shipbuilding that, assuming the current programs continue, we are still so far behind replacing our aging fleet that we almost need an overseas supplemental build to catch up. That is, a short term overseas build PLUS continuing local shipbuilding is the answer to our timing problem.

This is where my thinking is on what I'm reading in this thread. That we are so far behind the 8-ball that we need to get three or four ships from an overseas yard, being a class already under construction with minimal changes that confer capabilities similar to the Anzacs, and that can be delivered from the early 2030s.

 

[hauritz]

Reading this thread as someone not as knowledgeable as most (possibly any) of you, I am trying to get my head around what the dilemmas are here for Australia in regard to our surface fleet (such as it is). It seems to me that there is a drive to have more warships, but there is real concern that the number we have will actually fall long before it gets better.

My understanding being that we don't expect the first Hunter to be commissioned now until 2032 at the earliest, and that they will then be delivered two years apart. But Anzac herself will be 36 years old in 2032, and by the time the eighth Hunter is delivered in 2046 (at that rate of one every two years) the youngest Anzac, Perth, would have been in commission for 40 years.

I understand that there are doubts the Anzacs will last, in spite of their upgrade program, and there are crewing challenges, and speculation now too that the Hunters are to be cut to six ships, and that we then might go for an AAW version for the last three, and/or that we might get another class in the nearer term to deliver a larger fleet sooner, with tier 1 and tier 2 warships being discussed too. Most of it is speculation I guess.

I can see the logic in acquiring another class of warship sooner - like ASAP - maybe even built overseas to both ensure our existing fleet doesn't diminish in size and to instead try to grow the numbers.

Ideally, but also realistically though, what are we looking at? Could we get four ships ordered and delivered on a similar-ish schedule to the Hunters, preferably sped up to one every 18 months, so that we could replace the Anzacs one for one by, say, the end of 2037? Then the fifth and sixth Hunters would be extras, taking the force to 13 ships, and next an AAW version or a whole new class of maybe six could take us to 16, with the last three of those replacing the Hobarts from 2047 (when Hobart herself will be 30 years old)?

Is building an extra class - basically an interim frigate or maybe something more capable - and quickly the only way to guarantee our existing numbers and build up the surface force sooner? If so, is it feasible to build it here or is it best to look overseas? I'm really interested in the bigger picture thoughts here. Hope I'm making sense.

And just for a very left-field thought, could we be interested in looking to a country like Finland which is building a class of four corvettes (really light frigates) that will hit the water at a rate of one a year through to 2031? Only came across that program because it is the same shipyard that is building the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries.

Yep. The maths doesn't work out. We will simply not be acquiring enough Hunters quickly enough to replace the ANZACs before they leave service. It is actually worse than that because I don't think keeping the ANZACs as frontline worships will even be viable going into the 2030s let alone the 2040s. Building a second line of GP frigates ASAP is absolutely vital.

 

[Redlands18]

I am concerned that we are getting so far behind with shipbuilding that, assuming the current programs continue, we are still so far behind replacing our aging fleet that we almost need an overseas supplemental build to catch up. That is, a short term overseas build PLUS continuing local shipbuilding is the answer to our timing problem.

I think that would depend on the overall condition of the Anzacs, and there is nothing in the public domain, saying they are worn out. And this would only be if they cannot be built at Hendersen or Osborne and I would suspect, they would still be fitted out in Australia. The RAN will still want SAAB 9LV minimum for the CMS, and CEAFAR 2, not every shipyard in the world would be acceptable for fitting the CEAFAR radar due to security concerns.

 

[Todjaeger]

Mu90 has a 25 km range as launched from a ship. Perhaps one of the reasons why the RAN was so pursuant of the Mu90 over the mk54. But the ships carry Mk54 for the MH60Rs and we used them on the P8s.

If the RAN was interested in missile launched torpedos, they would probably look at MILAS, as its the rocket launched MU90. Launched from canisters, so TLAM would not be affected, we would just be removing box antiship missiles instead.

Again, I am not sure we need 30-50km launch capability from the ship. I am not sure ship sensors like a hull mounted sonar can detect subs that far for a realistic firing solution. If we are chasing things that far away, a helicopter or P8 would be much more effective and provide a lot more capability in sensor and area to cover.

MU90 has a variable speed capability, which in turn can dictate. A range of ~23 km at minimum speed (29 kts?), or a range of ~10 km at max speed (50+ kts), which is a comparable range to the Mk 54 LWT.

In terms of sensor performance, I suspect that the Mk 54 is comparable to the MU90, possibly slightly better given its development history. In terms of underwater depth and speed, the MU90 is significantly better, which is also to be expected given the developmental histories of the two torpedoes. The US Mk 50 LWT was developed to meet similar speed and depth reqs as the MU90 which AFAIK was driven by Cold War era concerns about the potential capabilities of Soviet Alfa-class subs. Following the end of the Cold War, the threat these subs presented was deemed less, which made justifying the significantly higher costs for the Mk 50 LWT problematic. The US found a solution by developing a new LWT which essentially combined the guidance package of the Mk 50 LWT with the propulsion system used by the Mk 46 LWT which, with some additional developments and improvements became the Mk 54 LWT. By using a less capable propulsion system, the Mk 54 LWT cannot go as deep or as fast as a Mk 50 or MU90, but also costs significantly less, slightly over a third the cost of a MU90. Since the MU90 was designed to be deployable from both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, as well as ships, I suspect the reason the ADF did not pay to have that integration work done is because of the torpedo cost. It just did not make sense when there is another LWT which is already integrated, costs significantly less per torp, and has a main user that will be fielding that torp and continuing development for a long time to come.

Something which seems to keep being overlooked is that the ASW efforts of a frigate like the Hunter-class is not something that would ordinarily be happening in isolation. The VDS and/or hull-mounted or towed arrays could potentially provide contact data to not only the ship, but from the ship to ASW helicopters in the area via datalinks. That also works the other way around, in that helicopters engaged in ASW ops like RAN MH-60R Seahawks might have detected a possible sub and be tracking it, feeding data to the ship for a possible launch solution. One issue with helicopters though is that they can usually only have two LWT's fitted, so depending on the area and potential contacts a situation could arise where a helicopter is tracking a suspected sub, but is unable to engage because it has exhausted onboard ordnance. In such situations, the data from the helicopter could be used by the ship to launch a LWT carried a further distance by missile or rocket (depending on range) to engage a contact.

I readily admit I do not know how likely such a scenario might arise, but I do feel that it is something the RAN should at least consider, if it has not already done so, when planning potential VLS cell loadouts.

 

[Todjaeger]

Reading this thread as someone not as knowledgeable as most (possibly any) of you, I am trying to get my head around what the dilemmas are here for Australia in regard to our surface fleet (such as it is). It seems to me that there is a drive to have more warships, but there is real concern that the number we have will actually fall long before it gets better.

My understanding being that we don't expect the first Hunter to be commissioned now until 2032 at the earliest, and that they will then be delivered two years apart. But Anzac herself will be 36 years old in 2032, and by the time the eighth Hunter is delivered in 2046 (at that rate of one every two years) the youngest Anzac, Perth, would have been in commission for 40 years.

I understand that there are doubts the Anzacs will last, in spite of their upgrade program, and there are crewing challenges, and speculation now too that the Hunters are to be cut to six ships, and that we then might go for an AAW version for the last three, and/or that we might get another class in the nearer term to deliver a larger fleet sooner, with tier 1 and tier 2 warships being discussed too. Most of it is speculation I guess.

I can see the logic in acquiring another class of warship sooner - like ASAP - maybe even built overseas to both ensure our existing fleet doesn't diminish in size and to instead try to grow the numbers.

Ideally, but also realistically though, what are we looking at? Could we get four ships ordered and delivered on a similar-ish schedule to the Hunters, preferably sped up to one every 18 months, so that we could replace the Anzacs one for one by, say, the end of 2037? Then the fifth and sixth Hunters would be extras, taking the force to 13 ships, and next an AAW version or a whole new class of maybe six could take us to 16, with the last three of those replacing the Hobarts from 2047 (when Hobart herself will be 30 years old)?

Is building an extra class - basically an interim frigate or maybe something more capable - and quickly the only way to guarantee our existing numbers and build up the surface force sooner? If so, is it feasible to build it here or is it best to look overseas? I'm really interested in the bigger picture thoughts here. Hope I'm making sense.

And just for a very left-field thought, could we be interested in looking to a country like Finland which is building a class of four corvettes (really light frigates) that will hit the water at a rate of one a year through to 2031? Only came across that program because it is the same shipyard that is building the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries.

I am not certain that above scenario is entirely accurate, though I do admit it can be both difficult and confusing trying to keep track of what the current shipbuilding plan is, alongside when, where, why and how schedules might have slipped.

From some of the docs I came across on SEA 5000 the other day, the Hunter-class build as part of the continuous national naval shipbuilding effort was planned to run until 2044, i.e. the ninth Hunter-class would be completed in 2044, though it might be 2045 or 2046 before handover is completed following builders trials etc. Also I believe that the lead ship was/is expected to be finished in 2029, and will then go through a series of tests and trials before getting handed over for service in 2031/2032. Also during the build the facility will usually have two hulls in varying stages of construction at any given time.

Or at least this was the plan with an approximately 24 month drumbeat for ship construction. As part of the decisions behind this made in 2018, the pace of parts of the build were apparently deliberately dragged out, to keep things ticking along until 2044 in an effort to ensure continuous shipbuilding. This could end up becoming important, because it might be possible for the tempo of the drumbeat to increased so that new vessels might be built in 18 months as opposed to 24 months, once the processes used for the first ship are verified. The second vessel might still not be ready for trials until 2030, but the third might be able to start trials towards the end of 2031 instead of 2032 or 2033, and so on. It might well be that the Hunter-class build programme could be accelerated to the point that deliveries could be made before any overseas orders could get built and then brought into RAN service, and before all the ANZAC-class frigates need to be retired.

Hopefully more will become clear and more information gets released by gov't, but unfortunately it does look like we will largely be kept in the dark for some time.

 

[protoplasm]

This could end up becoming important, because it might be possible for the tempo of the drumbeat to increased so that new vessels might be built in 18 months as opposed to 24 months, once the processes used for the first ship are verified.

Living in Adelaide, and sailing in and around the port over the years, I've had a couple of oblique conversations with blokes involved in the design and build of Osborne South. Opinion was that there is no problem with the shipyard being able to do an 18 month drumbeat, and maybe being able to shave a month or two off that once they get really efficient. The only issue is actually making the decision that we are going to produce at that pace.

 

[old faithful]

Just a question.
Why will it take 8 years before the 1st Hunter us handed to the RAN?
It's close enough to 2024 now, the prototype blocks are being made, how urgent is the build really, if they are not going to deliver a ship until 8 years from now?

 

[Milne Bay]

Just a question.
Why will it take 8 years before the 1st Hunter us handed to the RAN?
It's close enough to 2024 now, the prototype blocks are being made, how urgent is the build really, if they are not going to deliver a ship until 8 years from now?

I expect that once a prototype block passes its performance gates and is verified for production, further blocks of that type will commence apace.
Each Hunter class frigate comprises 22 blocks, including the mast – each block is made up of between one to seven steel units.

All five of our prototype blocks are in various stages of completion, with our first two – Block 16 and Block 10 – having completed their blast and paint process.

Hunter Class Frigate Program Update | Feature

Latest news: BAE Systems Australia is racing ahead with the largest ever Australian surface warship build program, the Hunter Class Frigate Program.

www.baesystems.com

So it shouldn't be necessary to complete the full set of 22 blocks before starting all over again. Surely, since blocks 16 and 10 are nearing completion, they can be certified or modified and the second set of blocks 16 and 10 can commence - even as the rest of ship one is still being built.
And so on with all of the successive individual blocks.
It is understandable that this first Hunter will take the longest, but each successive ship of the class will roll out faster and faster with each new one.

 

[Reptilia]

Fit out takes way longer than unit production, testing and integration also takes some time.

 

[old faithful]

So 10 years from start date to ship 1?
Surely it can be done faster.

 

[Reptilia]

So 10 years from start date to ship 1?
Surely it can be done faster.

It’s not just the ships construction but building and training the workforce. It is 2023-29/30 build, 30/31 testing, 31/32 commissioning. Similar to the U.K timeline. Follow on Hunters every 1.5 - 2 years. Future builds(First of class, not the Type 26 will also take less time)

 

[Volkodav]

So 10 years from start date to ship 1?
Surely it can be done faster.

Look at the DDG 51 Burke class. Ordered in 85, laid down 88, commisioned in 91 but underwent extensive trials until 93 and that was from a highly experienced established yard that had been churning out for a hundred years by that point.

Warships are incredibly complex to build and commision, especially the first of class and that's what the Hunter will be.

 

[ADMk2]

The 12 extra MH-60R are a replacement for the 6 MRH-90 logistics Helicopters and at this stage the MH-60R lost in the Philippine Sea in 2021, so in reality an increase of 5 Helicopters.
Even if they only have 24 VLS that would still make the Hunter a superior AAW ship to what the Perth class DDGs where in their day.
Australia may be able to get away with upsetting Naval Group and the French, but we are far too reliant on BAE to be able to get away with cancelling the Hunters, the same way we did the Attacks.

Small note.

We have bought 13x extra MH-60R… DSCA request was for 12x, but we have acquired one more on top through some means, perhaps direct commercial sale or as excess defence articles from the USN.

Australia to Acquire 13 Additional MH-60R Seahawks From US Navy

Lockheed Martin has announced that the Australian military will purchase 13 additional MH-60R Seahawks from the US Navy.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[ADMk2]

Slight point of correction here, and perhaps a somewhat pedantic one. Mk 41 VLS comes in three different lengths which are self-defense, tactical, and strike. The self-defense launcher is 5.3 m whilst the tactical is 6.8 m and the strike is 7.7 m.

Given a choice, I would rather the RAN adopt and start loading RUM-139 VL-ASROC fitted with Mk 54 LWT's, rather than a handful of RGM-109E Tomahawks.

Now if the Hunter-class VLS loadout could be increased significantly in size/number (like tripled) then allocating some cells to LACM would make a bit more sense. As it stands now, the NSM should provide some LACM capability in addition to serving as an AShM.

Self-defence length Mk.41 VLS is no longer manufactured or offered for sale. It was discontinued for some reason.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41-VLS-product-card.pdf

 

[ADMk2]

The RAN has never really showed any interest in the ASROC.
We have P8's, we have MH60R firing light weight Mk54, we have ship fired MU90.

Its a pretty narrow range, where they are in close to the ship, but not near the helicopter/P8, but far enough away to be out of range of the Mu90, but are in range to be detected.

In the big ocean spaces the RAN typically operates and the few choke points it has interest in, it does not seem to be a big consideration.
Not sure I see the Mk54 fired from ASROC as more threatening to any target than TLAM. TLAM will hit them, ASROC, well, maybe you are going to get a hail mary firing solution.

The way people here talk about Tomahawk, it is like they are getting their reports from RT.

‘Low efficiency’: Only 23 Tomahawk missiles out of 59 reached Syrian airfield, Russian MoD says

The Russian Defense Ministry says the US missile strike on a Syrian airfield wasn't very effective, with only 23 out of 59 Tomahawk missiles reaching their target. The locations of the remaining 36 missiles’ impact is now unknown, the ministry added.

www.rt.com

Even then the Russians only claimed 23 out of 59 success rate.

Even if you are carrying ASROC, how many do you intend to fire? One or two? Then moving into position to track, or moving an air asset to track and make more fires. I don't quite understand why we would need more than two loaded.

Maybe we should look at the LHD being a ASW asset. Really six or more helicopters, with drones and a P8 should provide excellent ASW coverage. The SSN would be the other key element. I am not sure that a single surface frigate is the ASW game changer, it in fact sounds like a surface target, not a submarine hunter.

Unless the target is defended, 100% of the TLAMs will hit them these days. If the target has defence capabilities then that number drops. Saying TLAM is useless, and that other weapons should be fitted, weapons without a 1500 mile strike range, and weapons without a 500Kg warhead.

I don't know what ASROC hit rates are, but I would be surprised if it was any where near 50%.

I suspect the future for ‘assisted’ torpedo shots is via VTOL UAV anyway. Frees up precious VLS slots, re-usable, multi-role and far longer range.

T-600 Drone Deploys Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo - Naval News

BAE Systems and Malloy Aeronautics have demonstrated the capabilities of the T-600 heavy lift uncrewed air system (UAS) to launch a torpedo

www.navalnews.com

 

[hauritz]

Small note.

We have bought 13x extra MH-60R… DSCA request was for 12x, but we have acquired one more on top through some means, perhaps direct commercial sale or as excess defence articles from the USN.

Australia to Acquire 13 Additional MH-60R Seahawks From US Navy

Lockheed Martin has announced that the Australian military will purchase 13 additional MH-60R Seahawks from the US Navy.

www.thedefensepost.com

To replace the lost helo. That will bring the RAN to 36 MH-90R of which 11 would be required for the main combattants. Seems to free up a lot of helos for other roles. Perhaps one of the LHDs might end up as a Helo carrier.

 

[Redlands18]

To replace the lost helo. That will bring the RAN to 36 MH-90R of which 11 would be required for the main combattants. Seems to free up a lot of helos for other roles. Perhaps one of the LHDs might end up as a Helo carrier.

The LHDs, LSD and AORs also deploy with one MH-60R each as ships flight, don't forget that the 13 new MH-60Rs also replace the MRH-90 in the logistics role. HMAS Sirius had no Hangar, so could not embark a Helicopter full time. So the actual increase in spare Helicopters is 5.

 

[SD67]

Alexander Downer is a toffee nosed prat whose own party couldn't stand him. He's father's property in the Adelaide Hills had a playhouse (yes an actual house). I know this because his father's estate was bought by the South Australian government after his daddy complained it was ruined because he could see the then new South Eastern Freeway. Yes the tax payers had to compensate Alexander's daddy for ruining his view.

Futhermore, this self entitled, elitist POS is one of the born to rule idiots who believes we shouldn't build or make anything in Australia. He is quite literally one of the people responsible for our current skills shortages and the whithered state of industry.

He's a want to be lord of the manor who was foreign affairs minister as China expanded their military and we shrunk ours, as China expanded and invested in manufacturing, science and technology and we cut ours.

He was definately part of the problem and most definately not part of the solution.

Beg to differ Volk. Met him a few times. He's a decent bloke, very self deprecating. Yes he's from a pretty elite background but you know what I remember him turning up to a sausage sizzle to raise money for the local Mount Barker Fire volunteers when he was already a Federal MP with much bigger fish to fry. In the UK he is really quite influential - Chair of Policy Exchange which is the key centre right think tank. You gotta look past the dodgy sense of humor

 

[Systems Adict]

So 10 years from start date to ship 1?
Surely it can be done faster.

Lets look at this LOGICALLY.

Type 26 is the baseline of the Hunter Design, with steel being cut back in 2017 for HMS Glasgow. Data in public domain states that she is expected to be OPERATIONAL in 2026 (according to Wikipedia).

A couple of years later & Hunter Class took that design & AUSTRALIANISED it (removing some of the equipment from Type 26 design & adding the indigenous / personal touch of the RAN / CoA). That work is STILL ongoing, as you're not 'Building to Print', due to changes that Australia wants. These changes add time (guess-timating 2 - 4 years) as they are quite technical & mean rework of internal layouts / cables & pipe runs & a million n one other miniscule issues (such as Australian safety Naval Regulatory requirements that are 100% in the opposite direction from the UK requirements).

The 1st Hunter will effectively serve as a PROTOTYPE (as all 1st of Type, 1st of Class often do), to combat the delays in the drumbeat the shipyard will start construction of the 2nd ship & during its build, it will take lessons learned from the 1st ship & incorporate MORE change, to make things easier / fix design flaws / possibly add equipment/systems that the RAN didn't have initial budget for, but now does & wants to add that NEW capability to the programme. This action may actually add some more time, but it will be quicker than the 1st ship.

While building Ship 2 of the class, they will also commence work on Ship 3 & assuming that NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES are made, this will be the bench mark for the build programme / drumbeat. As time progresses & more ships are built, the shipyard will start cost saving exercises, such as reducing total manpower working on the build as much as 10 percent, ship-on-ship. & it is this process that makes the ships come on stream faster.(Lessons learned / know what they're doing)

Over the next 10 -15 years all shipyards worldwide will be looking at similar processes & activities, to ensure that they can build the ships they have contracts for with the manpower resources they have, as globally we have been having less children per-capita than those born during the GEN-X era (1965 to 1980). This issue means that there aren't enough trained / specialised trades-people out there to actually do the work. It also explains why Navies are struggling to man ships & why most counties unemployment figures are the lowest they've been since the 1950's !


SA

 

[H_K]

I’m with @old faithful here. The closest comparable sized hull (Type 45 / Horizon) took 4 years 3 months to build, from 1st steel cut to start of sea trials.

4 years. Not 10 years.

3 different yards in 3 different countries all managed to build their first of class within that timeframe. That’s the benchmark I would set for Osborne. Sure that doesn’t include acceptance & shakedown trials which can take 18mo+ for a complex new combat system (like PAAMS), but even then I would want to see a Hunter in the water with a crew working up well before 2030.