Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

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

If you are downing unmanned platforms like drones, is that lethal force? Or if you evacuate the crew before firing and sinking. But it is an interesting point.

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

TBH the Arafura's could probably do their job pretty well with Typhoons. I am not sure procurement of a specific policing round is really required for these ships. If they face anything where a 25mm is more than overkill, then you need a more capable ship than a Arafura.

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.

Part of the issue is the drones aren't actually targeting military ships all the time. They know a US destroyer can easily fend off an attack from a drone travelling at 200kmph. But the large tanker ~40-50km away can't do anything, and at that range, its probably even beyond ESSM from that ship.

If the drones are flying at the Navy ships, ESSM and gun based solutions are very viable. 5" is probably a good powerful calibre for larger and high flying drones. I think the 57 and 76mm are quite nice ballistically and cost wise and ships would be able to carry large number of rounds, but engage drones at still considerable range from the ship.

An armed flying UAV might also be useful. Able to take out drones with missiles or perhaps, gunfire. Being airborne and moving at speed, it would have a significantly larger engagement envelope. I am unaware of any existing UAV's with this specific mission.

 

[ADMk2]

Could fit only 8 SM-2 and the ESSM is the only real hard kill AD the Anzacs other than the limited AAW capability provided by the 127 and 25mm, have and is the SM-2 integrated into the Anzacs CMS?

RAN ANZAC’s don’t mount a 25mm gun. They literally have nothing kinetically that sits between the 12.7mm Mini-Typhoon and the Mk.45 127mm main gun.

Yet another problem with putting them into a drone aerial attack likely AO, not to mention they also likely require defence against anti-ship ballistic missiles, to operate there.

To my mind, until DEW are in widespread use ( and maybe even afterwards) every ship in such an environment needs at least one fast firing medium calibre weapon system (aka Phalanx, Millennium gun or similar) or a medium calibre gun system firing air-bursting munition, in addition to counter-UAS EA capability.

The US has plenty of ESSM in theatre, yet according to public reports all of their engagements have required SM-2…

Which seems to give the answer to the question about which ships we could use.

We only have 3x ships equipped with SM-2 and only the same 3 ships that have fast firing medium calibre gun systems… Which puts the wartime utility of our ANZAC Class and any proposed ‘Tier 2’ vessel into substantial question.

I’m sure they are fine for regional engagement, just as long as no-one fires anything much at them, from as little as a cardboard drone, to an ASBM…

 

[ADMk2]

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

ABFC Ocean Shield is equipped with a pair of deck-mounted 12.7mm machine guns, as are the ABCF Cape class vessels...

https://www.abf.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/border-protection/maritime/patrol-vessels

 

[hauritz]

Let's hope the border force never has to deal with the People's Armed Forces Maritime Militia. Same mob who aren't averse to trying to bring down RAN helicopters with high power lasers, or ramming other vessels, or using water cannons. Most of these vessels reputedly carry small arms, and who knows what else. Hope a 12.7 mm machine gun can cope with that.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Let's hope the border force never has to deal with the People's Armed Forces Maritime Militia. Same mob who aren't averse to trying to bring down RAN helicopters with high power lasers, or ramming other vessels, or using water cannons. Most of these vessels reputedly carry small arms, and who knows what else. Hope a 12.7 mm machine gun can cope with that.

Presumably Border force would be operating underneath RAAF aircover, and presumably if anything came that was at least equal of border force, they would get a RAN ship. Border force aren't really the problem here.

We only have 3x ships equipped with SM-2 and only the same 3 ships that have fast firing medium calibre gun systems… Which puts the wartime utility of our ANZAC Class and any proposed ‘Tier 2’ vessel into substantial question.

I think tier 2 is getting a heavy rethink. The obvious criticism to a tier 2 now, is, well what about the red sea request. What if something like that was required more locally.

It doesn't completely eliminate some of the tier two ideas and platforms. But the idea is probably less attractive than it sounded like ~3-6 months ago.

That Tasman class from Navantia, with 16 cells, and a 76mm and 35mm isn't completely stupid. You could still have 8 VLS with quad packed ESSM = 32 ESSM, 8 SM-2, Plus a 76mm and a 35mm, with Ceafar and 9LV that would actually be a reasonable option. Sure with 8 VLS with SM-2 you don't get many shots, but Australia isn't the USA, and we don't have a SM-2 in the thousands to waste. It would be able to help and have a layered defence. But 8 shots is less than what a single US destroyer has fired so far and to be honest, a number even the Houthis might able to saturate. Let alone facing something off from a near peer or peer.

Things could definitely escalate from this so buying, building, preparing for the bare minimum is perhaps short sighted. But if its just to fill a short term role then maybe? But for that effort we could get something much more capable. Its not just money, its time and effort.

Something with more than 16 cells, like 32 or 48 would definitely be much better. We could have something with TLAM in that space.
If we had 4-6x Hobarts we would definitely send one. 3 AWD/DDG are clearly now and were never enough.

If we build a small navy, we build a small navy. If we build a big navy, we build a big navy. Honestly I feel that even if we built a small navy, we would still struggle to crew it. If we had a big navy, we may actually struggle less.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If you are wondering who *IS* going

Pentagon Announces Mission to Counter Attacks on Commercial Vessels in Red Sea

Multiple shipping companies have ordered their ships to hold in place and not enter the Bab el-Mandeb Strait until the security situation can be addressed.

www.voanews.com

The United Kingdom, Bahrain, Canada, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Seychelles and Spain will join the U.S. in the new mission, Austin announced. Some of the countries will conduct joint patrols while others provide intelligence support in the southern Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

It feels a bit daft we can't join that.

Also BP has announced it is stopping its tankers.

BP halts oil and gas shipments through Red Sea after rebel attacks

Energy company follows decisions by five big shipping firms as Houthi militants step up attacks on vessels

www.theguardian.com

So yes, this directly impacts Australia. Australia gets oil from mostly Singapore, which gets more than 40% of its oil from the middle east. Even if we didn't, oil is a globally traded commodity, if exports slow from the middle east, global prices skyrocket.

Australia imports almost all of its oil, and there are pitfalls all over the globe

Australia’s recently announced review of its national fuel stockpiles is timely indeed. The country is almost totally reliant on oil being shipped through some of the world’s most contested regions.

theconversation.com

So closing the straits, will make oil prices jump, and that will flow down to fruit, vegetables, fertilizers, computers, cars, tyres, clothing, etc.. Cost of living shoots up through the roof. Think about everything that arrives by ship or by truck or you carried home in your car.

But there is also a humanitarian aspect, we don't want an expanded regional war in the middle east.

There is an allied aspect, about being a capable and willing middle power that can do things.

 

[Volkodav]

Presumably Border force would be operating underneath RAAF aircover, and presumably if anything came that was at least equal of border force, they would get a RAN ship. Border force aren't really the problem here.


I think tier 2 is getting a heavy rethink. The obvious criticism to a tier 2 now, is, well what about the red sea request. What if something like that was required more locally.

It doesn't completely eliminate some of the tier two ideas and platforms. But the idea is probably less attractive than it sounded like ~3-6 months ago.

That Tasman class from Navantia, with 16 cells, and a 76mm and 35mm isn't completely stupid. You could still have 8 VLS with quad packed ESSM = 32 ESSM, 8 SM-2, Plus a 76mm and a 35mm, with Ceafar and 9LV that would actually be a reasonable option. Sure with 8 VLS with SM-2 you don't get many shots, but Australia isn't the USA, and we don't have a SM-2 in the thousands to waste. It would be able to help and have a layered defence. But 8 shots is less than what a single US destroyer has fired so far and to be honest, a number even the Houthis might able to saturate. Let alone facing something off from a near peer or peer.

Things could definitely escalate from this so buying, building, preparing for the bare minimum is perhaps short sighted. But if its just to fill a short term role then maybe? But for that effort we could get something much more capable. Its not just money, its time and effort.

Something with more than 16 cells, like 32 or 48 would definitely be much better. We could have something with TLAM in that space.
If we had 4-6x Hobarts we would definitely send one. 3 AWD/DDG are clearly now and were never enough.

If we build a small navy, we build a small navy. If we build a big navy, we build a big navy. Honestly I feel that even if we built a small navy, we would still struggle to crew it. If we had a big navy, we may actually struggle less.

Value for money.

Steel is cheap, air is free.

What is the price difference between a frigate with 16 cells, 24 cells, 32 cells and 48 cells?

The combat system capable of effectively using SM-2 is a fixed cost, irrespective of the size of the ship it is fitted to.

It's sounding more and more that a ship with Hobart like capability is the minimum the RAN should be looking at as a Tier 2. Maybe AEGIS isn't necessary but an active phased array volume search radar plus a suitable CMS and CEC. 32 or 48 cell VLS, a medium calibre gun with guided projectiles and one or more lighter guns also with guided projectiles. One, possibly two helicopters.

 

[ADMk2]

Presumably Border force would be operating underneath RAAF aircover, and presumably if anything came that was at least equal of border force, they would get a RAN ship. Border force aren't really the problem here.


I think tier 2 is getting a heavy rethink. The obvious criticism to a tier 2 now, is, well what about the red sea request. What if something like that was required more locally.

It doesn't completely eliminate some of the tier two ideas and platforms. But the idea is probably less attractive than it sounded like ~3-6 months ago.

That Tasman class from Navantia, with 16 cells, and a 76mm and 35mm isn't completely stupid. You could still have 8 VLS with quad packed ESSM = 32 ESSM, 8 SM-2, Plus a 76mm and a 35mm, with Ceafar and 9LV that would actually be a reasonable option. Sure with 8 VLS with SM-2 you don't get many shots, but Australia isn't the USA, and we don't have a SM-2 in the thousands to waste. It would be able to help and have a layered defence. But 8 shots is less than what a single US destroyer has fired so far and to be honest, a number even the Houthis might able to saturate. Let alone facing something off from a near peer or peer.

Things could definitely escalate from this so buying, building, preparing for the bare minimum is perhaps short sighted. But if its just to fill a short term role then maybe? But for that effort we could get something much more capable. Its not just money, its time and effort.

Something with more than 16 cells, like 32 or 48 would definitely be much better. We could have something with TLAM in that space.
If we had 4-6x Hobarts we would definitely send one. 3 AWD/DDG are clearly now and were never enough.

If we build a small navy, we build a small navy. If we build a big navy, we build a big navy. Honestly I feel that even if we built a small navy, we would still struggle to crew it. If we had a big navy, we may actually struggle less.

Ships now are routinely going to be asked to be capable again drones, cruise missiles as well as anti-ship ballistic missiles, potentially simultaneously.

Ships are also going to continue to need to be capable against submarines and other ships, and in many cases against land based targets as well.

They will continue to need range and they will always need endurance.

That’s a lot to ask of a ‘Tier 2’ ship…

 

[John Fedup]

Ships now are routinely going to be asked to be capable again drones, cruise missiles as well as anti-ship ballistic missiles, potentially simultaneously.

Ships are also going to continue to need to be capable against submarines and other ships, and in many cases against land based targets as well.

They will continue to need range and they will always need endurance.

That’s a lot to ask of a ‘Tier 2’ ship…

Tier 2 is likely to evolve into a Tier 1 as multiple threats increase. Tier 1 in peer to peer confrontations will probably need to become a 12-15,000 ton monster with a ton of missiles, multiple guns, energy direct weapons, and two big a$$ GTs. Might need some advanced robots for meeting crew requirements though.

 

[iambuzzard]

Tier 2 is likely to evolve into a Tier 1 as multiple threats increase. Tier 1 in peer to peer confrontations will probably need to become a 12-15,000 ton monster with a ton of missiles, multiple guns, energy direct weapons, and two big a$$ GTs. Might need some advanced robots for meeting crew requirements though.

We may need to go back to a medium calibre (127mm) gun on the stern to provide all round cover. Where to put it so as to not obstruct the helipad is the $64 question!

 

[Meriv90]

Tier 2 is likely to evolve into a Tier 1 as multiple threats increase. Tier 1 in peer to peer confrontations will probably need to become a 12-15,000 ton monster with a ton of missiles, multiple guns, energy direct weapons, and two big a$$ GTs. Might need some advanced robots for meeting crew requirements though.

The Italian way is the future

 

[Redlands18]

We may need to go back to a medium calibre (127mm) gun on the stern to provide all round cover. Where to put it so as to not obstruct the helipad is the $64 question!

76mm Sovraponte | Weaponsystems.net
76 mm/62 OTO-Melara Compact (76 mm)/Ammunition - War Thunder Wiki
The latest 76/62mm Sovraponte from Leonardo is extremely light at around 5t and is non deck penetrating. Can fire SAPOM (16Km), SAPOMER (20Km), DART (8Km), Vulcano 76 (40Km) so is in an option to be fitted above the Hangar.

 

[Maranoa]

All the talk about RAN capacity to undertake the mission in the Red Sea is missing the point, Australia's decision to not participate was taken for political not military reasons. Hard evidence of this is seen in the US SecDef's statement on Prosperity Guardians which explicitly left out Australia even though we are in theory deploying a headquarters contingent, obviously Australia requested not to be included. Previous tiny ADF contingents of two or three were always counted as another flag on the US led multinational mission flag poles for as long as I can remember. Combined Maritime Forces HQ (and its predecessors) has been decorated with a swarm of flags since Op Damask in the 1990s, many from nations never active beyond the odd semi useless Commander or Lieutenant's deployment years ago during the Somali pirate crisis.

 

[Volkodav]

It strikes me that we are back to where we were in the late 60s, early 70s.

There was a legacy fleet that, with the exception of three new ships, lacked the minimum self defence capability of Tartar.

There were plans for upgrading older destroyers with Tartar and plans for light destroyers (DDL) were recast to incorporate Tartar, but we continued building frigates (DEs) without it and ordered patrol boats with no real war fighting capability.

For a decade and a half all bar three of our combatants were functionally unsurvivable, prior to that, none were.

It wasn't until the FFGs started coming on line that we had survivable escorts to support the DDGs.

The ANZACs were only viable because we had nine SM-1 ships and plans for eight or nine SM-2 ships to replace them.

That's were the whole concept of tiers came from, tier 1, SM-1/2 operating in contested environments, tier 2 operating in more permissive environment at the outer limits of our area of interest, tier 3 operating in more permissive environments closer to our continent.

Only tier one was intended to operate far from Australia, that's why there meant to be eight or nine of them. What did we do, we cut tier one, maintained tier 2 and dumbed down then bought three generations of tier 3.

 

[Stampede]

All the talk about RAN capacity to undertake the mission in the Red Sea is missing the point, Australia's decision to not participate was taken for political not military reasons. Hard evidence of this is seen in the US SecDef's statement on Prosperity Guardians which explicitly left out Australia even though we are in theory deploying a headquarters contingent, obviously Australia requested not to be included. Previous tiny ADF contingents of two or three were always counted as another flag on the US led multinational mission flag poles for as long as I can remember. Combined Maritime Forces HQ (and its predecessors) has been decorated with a swarm of flags since Op Damask in the 1990s, many from nations never active beyond the odd semi useless Commander or Lieutenant's deployment years ago during the Somali pirate crisis.

The Red Sea conversation is really about our current state of capability.
If we were asked or not, go or not, is academic.
The thought we maybe challenged against the threat level of a Houthis rebel type group speaks volumes for where we are today.

On a positive I understand we have 5 ANZACS and three Hobart's in the water which is about two thirds of the fleet.
This is a healthy ratio of availability considering the maintenance / refit cycle of the fleet.
This figure is made better when we consider that three of the vessels are our most capable ships in the Hobart Class.

So do we have a problem or not.

I'd say both the ANZACs and Hobart's could be deployed against such a threat within certain parameters.

Now increase the threat level to one of a functioning nation state with modern and balanced defence capability, we start to have some serious challenges.

The ANZACs become redundant and the Hobart's availability becomes challenged with a refit in the years ahead.

The Red Sea conversation has reminded us as to where we are today and the confrontation in the South China Sea begs the question how would we respond to such challenges if closer to home.


Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Italian way is the future

It's not a terrible idea if space and weight allow..

Taking out a 50k drone with a 5k shell of which the ship can carry hundreds and can be locally produced by the thousands.

Drones and loitering munitions aren't going away.

 

[spoz]

ABFC Ocean Shield is equipped with a pair of deck-mounted 12.7mm machine guns, as are the ABCF Cape class vessels...

https://www.abf.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/border-protection/maritime/patrol-vessels

I am aware. The question not of mounting but of use to apply lethal force (not to shoot down drones, an unlikely requirement for them, or to sink a hazard to navigation). It’s when civilians kill using military weapons that an issue could well arise.

 

[Stampede]

F

I am aware. The question not of mounting but of use to apply lethal force (not to shoot down drones, an unlikely requirement for them, or to sink a hazard to navigation). It’s when civilians kill using military weapons that an issue could well arise.

Fair question and an important question.

State and federal police have weapons some of which are military grade and can use leathal force.

Borderforce are also well equiped, including having weapons up to in size and capability a 50 cal automatic machine gun.

So the question will need to have an answer as the decades ahead will not look like the decades of the past.

Border force have many roles one of which is to be a coast guard.
It's not the name we give it in Australia but the role is the same.

Looking at other coast guard ships around the world you can see a broad range of capabilities regarding their respective weapons fitout.

I see no need to restrict our Cape Class and OPVs to such minimal fitout regardless of what government department crews the vessel.

Will need to sort this out sooner rather than later.

It will not be a great expense but will provife government more options.

Start with the old 25mm bushmaster.

Cheers S

 

[Meriv90]

It's not a terrible idea if space and weight allow..

Taking out a 50k drone with a 5k shell of which the ship can carry hundreds and can be locally produced by the thousands.

Drones and loitering munitions aren't going away.

5k but unguided.

The prices aren't official but once I read the 3 round salvo of guided rounds should be around 90k in total. But that would be before economies of scale since it is new tech.

Still 20-30k per round is the cheapest guidance we can get.

Another option that could be interesting would be something like 70mm laser guided rockets. For slow movers that could be the cheapest option. With if enought laser pointers, deal with multiple drones, in a case of a swarm, at the same time.

Plus I never understood why Ukraine is asking for Apaches, if I was them I would ask for Cobras and Mangusta and try them in an anti-drone role (they move fast, can carry stingers, use the cannon, they should be the optimal solution against shaded and similar).

 

[iambuzzard]

Tier 2 is likely to evolve into a Tier 1 as multiple threats increase. Tier 1 in peer to peer confrontations will probably need to become a 12-15,000 ton monster with a ton of missiles, multiple guns, energy direct weapons, and two big a$$ GTs. Might need some advanced robots for meeting crew requirements though.

We may need to go back to a medium calibre (127mm) gun on the stern to provide all round cover. Where to put it so as to not obstruct the helipad is the $64 question!