Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

The Americans are forcing the issue. The know the only suitable ship is the Hobart's and that the hobart upgrades are to start in 2025.

Sure we can reject the request. But most shipping companies have already made the red sea off limits. Failing to answer the American call for help, undermines aukus.

What ever you think about Gaza, houthi missiles being fired indiscriminately across the region is bad. They want to widen the conflict.

If we don't go you know who might? China. China's oil and exports flow through that region. OK, now we have the US and Chinese ships in the red sea shooting at things in an uncoordinated way in a war zone. Us aligned mostly to the Saudis and isrealis, China more aligned with Iran, Pakistan etc..

China intercepting US interceptors? Accidently?

We can see that this would be like super bad for world peace?

Not ideal. It's big strategy game stuff. Clearly the ausgov is apprehensive. But that isn't definitive, I would expect a proper answer in the new year.

Yes may mean delaying hobart upgrades. They also now need to think about the dsr now it's on fire. The American may need to knock three times.

We have rejected American requests before, f111s in Iraq 1 for example. But this is a big important ask.

 

[Armchair]

If we don't go you know who might? China. China's oil and exports flow through that region. OK, now we have the US and Chinese ships in the red sea shooting at things in an uncoordinated way in a war zone. Us aligned mostly to the Saudis and isrealis, China more aligned with Iran, Pakistan etc..

I don’t see why a PLAN deployment would be contingent on the presence or absence of a RAN vessel. If there is a deterioration of the situation of the form you suggest then I would see that as an even stronger argument for preserving RAN assets in the region.

 

[DDG38]

Simple exercise for those questioning the logic of deploying an MFU to the Red Sea. Take a look around the room you're currently sitting in, observe the furniture, computer, screens, power cables etc. Now remind yourself that 90% of everything in that room came to Australia via sea transport. This is not so much about doing what the US asks but simply maintaining the global trade economy (Europe is Australia's 3rd largest trade partner) and sea lines of communication.
Also, you guys remember that the RAN has been deploying to the MEAO since the early 90s right ? And have been part of (and leading at times) the various allied task forces that operate there ? It's not like we're unfamiliar with the region and the threats faced by ships there.

 

[Volkodav]

The Americans are forcing the issue. The know the only suitable ship is the Hobart's and that the hobart upgrades are to start in 2025.

Sure we can reject the request. But most shipping companies have already made the red sea off limits. Failing to answer the American call for help, undermines aukus.

What ever you think about Gaza, houthi missiles being fired indiscriminately across the region is bad. They want to widen the conflict.

If we don't go you know who might? China. China's oil and exports flow through that region. OK, now we have the US and Chinese ships in the red sea shooting at things in an uncoordinated way in a war zone. Us aligned mostly to the Saudis and isrealis, China more aligned with Iran, Pakistan etc..

China intercepting US interceptors? Accidently?

We can see that this would be like super bad for world peace?

Not ideal. It's big strategy game stuff. Clearly the ausgov is apprehensive. But that isn't definitive, I would expect a proper answer in the new year.

Yes may mean delaying hobart upgrades. They also now need to think about the dsr now it's on fire. The American may need to knock three times.

We have rejected American requests before, f111s in Iraq 1 for example. But this is a big important ask.

Sounding very Tom Clancy. China asserting themselves and accidentally on purpose causing an outrage they blame others for. Even though the US can prove its them it doesn't matter because many chose to believe the US is always wrong.

 

[Volkodav]

Simple exercise for those questioning the logic of deploying an MFU to the Red Sea. Take a look around the room you're currently sitting in, observe the furniture, computer, screens, power cables etc. Now remind yourself that 90% of everything in that room came to Australia via sea transport. This is not so much about doing what the US asks but simply maintaining the global trade economy (Europe is Australia's 3rd largest trade partner) and sea lines of communication.
Also, you guys remember that the RAN has been deploying to the MEAO since the early 90s right ? And have been part of (and leading at times) the various allied task forces that operate there ? It's not like we're unfamiliar with the region and the threats faced by ships there.

The sad thing is, in 2023/4 we are less able to do so than we were in 1991.

In fact the last time I recall the RAN being in such a state, relying on obsolete, obsolescent and literally only three modern, capable ships, was the late 60s, early 70s. Oh yes, the three modern capable ships were smaller, less capable, and fewer in number than was actually required, and being cycled through massive, expensive upgrades.

 

[hauritz]

I used to think the idea of taking up Spain’s offer to build 3 new Hobarts before the end of the decade was a tad ridiculous. However it is becoming increasingly obvious that new, more capable ships are urgently required by the RAN and that offer needs to be seriously considered.

Also becoming obvious that the minimum requirement for a tier 2 ship is that it has to be capable of deployments to regions such as the Middle East.

 

[hauritz]

Sounding very Tom Clancy. China asserting themselves and accidentally on purpose causing an outrage they blame others for. Even though the US can prove its them it doesn't matter because many chose to believe the US is always wrong.

Maybe a little Tom Clancy but the current situation in the Red Sea does benefit both Russia and China. It distracts the Americans and the rest of the world away from the South China Sea and the Ukraine. You could probably even add Russia’s South American ally, Venezuela’s annexing of part of Guyana to the conspiracy as well.

 

[icelord]

Maybe a little Tom Clancy but the current situation in the Red Sea does benefit both Russia and China. It distracts the Americans and the rest of the world away from the South China Sea and the Ukraine. You could probably even add Russia’s South American ally, Venezuela’s annexing of part of Guyana to the conspiracy as well.

Season 5 of Jack Ryan is going to be disregarded as not realistic enough if it doesnt match current events

For those wondering to extend the FFG and its impact now, it was obsolete and there were attempts to stop its deployment to MEAO in 2009 against pirates, Darwin being an example of this as their deployment was cancelled until enhancements were made. Wouldnt even be discussed today as being deployable.

Navy has gone through this before and modified ships to deploy. Hobart class, most likely Brisbane, deploying now with another to replace in 4-6mths is possible. While an assessment is made with exercises off the coast, possibly with USN Burke to integrate into their operations and see if Anzacs have a role to play for end 2024 deployment

 

[ngatimozart]

Looking at drone warfare in Ukraine and the Red Sea, I believe serious consideration has to be given to upgrading ships gun armament to include at least two 30mm+ cannon armament as well as the current CIWS. I also think that the 20mm CIWS is obsolete because of lack of range and bang in comparison to a 30mm calibre. If you look at Ukraine the UKR are having a lot of success with the 1960s Gepard 35mm SPAAG that Germany sent to them. 30mm shells are cheaper than the SeaRAM missiles. the US doesn't produce a 30mm CIWS, but South Korea does.

 

[Stampede]

Looking at drone warfare in Ukraine and the Red Sea, I believe serious consideration has to be given to upgrading ships gun armament to include at least two 30mm+ cannon armament as well as the current CIWS. I also think that the 20mm CIWS is obsolete because of lack of range and bang in comparison to a 30mm calibre. If you look at Ukraine the UKR are having a lot of success with the 1960s Gepard 35mm SPAAG that Germany sent to them. 30mm shells are cheaper than the SeaRAM missiles. the US doesn't produce a 30mm CIWS, but South Korea does.

Guns still have a place.
360 degree close in defence out to a couple of KMs realistically requires at least two systems.
30mm should be the minimum calibre.

Ideally all sixteen of our major vessels over 3000t should have this capability.

HMAS Choules should not be a challenge.
The ANZACs may be problematic.

The UAV /drone stuff is here to stay.

How are you going to deal with that Army and Navy?

Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don’t see why a PLAN deployment would be contingent on the presence or absence of a RAN vessel. If there is a deterioration of the situation of the form you suggest then I would see that as an even stronger argument for preserving RAN assets in the region.

Its not a direct result. But I guess I was trying to explore the more complex geopolitical picture. With an aussie vessel the American could do a deal with the Chinese to both of them withdraw and leave it to the Aussies, who china feels they have more influence with. It might make insurance companies happier about risks to have an aussie ship there than american ships.

Maybe a little Tom Clancy but the current situation in the Red Sea does benefit both Russia and China. It distracts the Americans and the rest of the world away from the South China Sea and the Ukraine. You could probably even add Russia’s South American ally, Venezuela’s annexing of part of Guyana to the conspiracy as well.

Well the world is a complicated place, things aren't entirely disconnected. If the US is stretched too far, and into too many pieces, its likely to lose focus or will or commitment. Particularly if other allies aren't interested or can't find the priority. From China's point of view. One or two of its brand new destroyers, a tiny commitment, but very public, will likely draw even more US resources into this area. If the canals become blocked, NATO projecting power into the SCS becomes much harder. Parking them off the coast of Iran, would also complicate the world. Attack them means war with Iran and China? Having them resupply out of Pakistan, means war with Pakistan? No doubt Iran is feeling nervous, and Pakistan is complicated at the best of times.

I used to think the idea of taking up Spain’s offer to build 3 new Hobarts before the end of the decade was a tad ridiculous. However it is becoming increasingly obvious that new, more capable ships are urgently required by the RAN and that offer needs to be seriously considered.

Also becoming obvious that the minimum requirement for a tier 2 ship is that it has to be capable of deployments to regions such as the Middle East.

I would imagine there would be lots of exploring what options Spain can do. Maybe Australia deploys for 12 months, then the Spanish pick it up while we upgrade. Maybe base a ship out of Australia.

The Americans wouldn't be forcing the issue unless they thought there was a reasonable solution.

30mm shells are cheaper than the SeaRAM missiles. the US doesn't produce a 30mm CIWS, but South Korea does.

Definitely a space to keep an eye on. The USN does have the Mk46 mod 2 30mm chain gun,on things like the san antonios, firing 200 rounds per minute with 400 rounds. The RAN has the DS30B on the Huon and on the Hunters. But its more about small surface threats than air threat. I don't think 20-25mm is dead either, but may be a case that future drone threats are better handled with bigger calibre.

Goal keeper was a tech dead end, people were removing it off ships, but now, perhaps being re looked at.

 

[Pusser01]

According to the Australian newspaper Richard Marles has played down the importance of deploying an Australian ship to the middle east citing that the navy's priorities were on our immediate region. He did say we will consider the request in due course. Given the complete lack of urgency shown by the government with defence issues this assurance probably doesn't mean a lot.

The commander of the Australian naval fleet, Rear Admiral Christopher Smith, said the navy was prepared for a government order to deploy. Got to wonder about that however as Australia apparantly only has 3 full crews for the Anzacs and that these frigates are probably undergunned for such a mission. A lot would seem to ride on whether we can deploy one of the Hobarts.

Currently 6 Anzac's have crew, 5 of them are in the water pretty much good to go.

 

[DDG38]

The fleet is back home from a very busy 3 months :
"A MH-60R Seahawk helicopter conducts a fly past as HMAS Toowoomba returns to Fleet Base West after conducting a Regional Presence Deployment." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"HMAS Stalwart returns to Fleet Base West after concluding a Regional Presence Deployment." Image Source : ADF Image Library

"HMAS Choules returns home to Fleet Base East on 14 December 2023" Image Source : ADF Image Library

"HMAS Brisbane prepares to berth alongside Fleet Base East in Sydney, New South Wales following a successful regional presence deployment." Image Source : ADF Image Library

 

[alexsa]

Stampede they are not completely useless but I certainly would be nervous going to war in one. An Anzac CMS would be an order of magnitude less capable than an Aegis system. There are some sophisticated bits of metal being shot around the place there, with the potential for some serious players to get involved. Can you imagine the fallout if one of our obsolete warships got struck and/or Australians get killed/vessel lost. Australia simply doesn't have the stomach for that. You reap what you sow, its time to suck it up. Further to this if heaven forbid we actually had to fire live missiles I just don't think we'd have the inventory in Australia to replenish them. Thats how dire our situation is I believe.

Good day
Don’t be too quick to deride the combination of the 9LV and the ESSM combination. This was tested with HMAS Perth engaging coyote supersonic targets in a direct defence and crossing situation. It performed very well and was a surprise to the US personal witnessing the tests on the missile range. In the direct defence trial the system engaged the targets hitting them at close to the maximum range of the ESSM.

In the crossing situation (i.e. defending a HVU) the system successfully took out the targets meaning this is not simply a self defence system but a very good medium range system that can defend other vessels. There is a good reason that the RAN is combining AEGIS with the 9LV tactical interface for the Hunters and the upgrades to their DDG.

However, I do agree the the DDG would be better in the proposed role simply because the SM-2 has significantly longer range.

To put the number of missiles in context, one USN destroyer has reportable engaged 14 targets while HMS Diamond (newly arrived in theatre) has shot down one. 32 misses is possibly sufficient but longer legs of the SM2 offer better capability.

 

[Redlands18]

Lets not forget the RAN is in the process of getting the ESSM Block II with active radar homing seeker, so the Anzacs will no longer rely on their target illumination radars and has a range in access of 50km.

 

[Meriv90]

Writing this because no one mentioned the main gun.

What Is the Backbone of the Houthi Air Force Capabilities?

Drones are part of the Houthi air force capabilities, and the group has launched hundreds of drone strikes over the past years of war. This investigative

shebaintelligence.uk

This are the drone capabilities of the Houti.

Thus 180km/h drones.

A 76mm, with STRALES and DART guided ammunition has 8km+ effective range.

Putting a 1km of margin, and lets say a 10sec engagement (rounds travel 1100m/s as in this video) .

And the second banshee is traveling at 360km/h 10meters above water.

Back to the Houti drones, they cover 3km per minute, thus giving us 140 seconds to engage them. Lets say 10 seconds per engagement that is 12-14 drones per 76mm.

This without counting ability of Houtis to sincro 14 drones to arrive at the same time, no ECM, no decoys.

I think with that slow speed the 127mm(on the Anzac) is already a good solution to take down 5-6 before they reach CIWS range. If Leonardo develops a DART/STRALES for the 127mm probably BAE can sell it as it did with the Vulcano. That in combination with the ESSM should be more than enough.

 

[swerve]

Guns still have a place.
360 degree close in defence out to a couple of KMs realistically requires at least two systems.
30mm should be the minimum calibre.

Ideally all sixteen of our major vessels over 3000t should have this capability.

HMAS Choules should not be a challenge.
The ANZACs may be problematic.

The UAV /drone stuff is here to stay. ...

The RN's gone for 40mm on the Type 31.
Poland's chosen 35mm for its version of the AH140

 

[Stampede]

The RN's gone for 40mm on the Type 31.
Poland's chosen 35mm for its version of the AH140

Upgrading the existing Typhoon mounts with a 30 mm would be the quick fix.

The smart solution however would be a calibre with increased range and smart programable munitions that can cater for all threat scenarios including subsonic ASMs.

The 35 / 40 mm solution hits the sweet spot of still being relatively light weight and not having a foot print too much larger than a Typhoon type of system.

More expensive yes, but offers so so much more in capability.

Certainly a consideration for the Hunter Class and suggest an over all priority across the fleet.

The Typhoons could be passed down to the Constabulary vessels.
Navy and Border Force.

Cheers S

 

[spoz]

Border Force is not authorised to use Lethal Force above small arms. Even 5O cal could be problematical from a legal perspective..

 

[Stampede]

Border Force is not authorised to use Lethal Force above small arms. Even 5O cal could be problematical from a legal perspective..

The suggestion was somewhat provocative and appreciate the legal challenge.

Navy have mounted a 25 to 40mm gun for some three generations of patrol boats.

We now have the peculiar situation that both Navy and border force both operate Cape Class vessels.

So do our commonwealth constabulary vessels need a main gun?
- 25mm or greater.

If so ,who operates such a weapon?

Just Navy?

Cheers S