Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Morgo

Well-Known Member
6 or 12 or 48 TLAM isn't likely to bring China to its knees
6, sure, but 48? I think you’d be surprised.

China is heavily dependent on imported energy, and the oil & gas pipelines coming in from Eastern Russia, the Caucasus and the ‘Stans are well within the range of Tomahawks launched from the northern part of the Bay of Bengal. These aren’t point targets that you can defend, they’re thousands of kilometers long. There is no way the Chinese can defend all points along it.

So if you were to fire a salvo of 6 missiles which hit a pipeline in 6 different places, how long could you take it offline? A month? And then what happens when you show up next month and do the same thing? At the same time you’re prioritising the interception of China bound oil & gas via sea?

I think you’d find the Chinese economy getting into a very bad state very quickly.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The SCALP/MdCN fired from the Suffren SSN weighs 1400kg and is 6.5 metres long. It is reportedly the same missile as Storm Shadow, so I assume the difference in length is due to the capsule for torpedo launch.
It shares some components, but it's not the same missile. Storm Shadow/Scalp is too wide for torpedo tubes. It has a roughly rectangular cross-section. MdCN (now NCM - Naval Cruise Missile) is cylindrical to fit in torpedo tubes, a bit heavier, longer, & longer range.

STORM SHADOW / SCALP | Air Dominance, DEEP STRIKE | MBDA

MdCN - NCM | Maritime Superiority, DEEP STRIKE | MBDA
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Well it’s a broad question what Collins missions will be when in 2030's and 2040's when we have some SSN capability and some Collins capability. The skeptical in me thinks they will simply shut down collins as soon as we have any SSN capability. The skeptical part of me thinks it may not even last that long and we may be down to training ops before too long because everything is too hard.

Its not that Collins can't hunt subs, but its not likely going to hunt ssks in our immediate EEZ as that is to far for the Chinese SSKs, generally. Again, hunting SSK's around Chinese ports isn't ideal either given Collins transit speed, time on station etc. Japanese, Korean, and US subs are better located or better equipped for that particular mission. We could stick our head in, but we aren't likely to linger in numbers.

If we are using Collins around Lombok, Malacca, then carrying TLAM gives us the ability to strike at Chinese "Facilities" in the south China Sea and also hassle any Chinese fleet roughhousing in the area. While not a magic bullet, it gives the Collins added strategic value for Aus/US. Being able to throw half a dozen TLAM from a different direction isn't nothing, particularly if done in conjunction with the US throwing hundreds. It gives Australia a legitimate seat at the table of doing something. As we are seeing in the Red sea. US military power is huge, but US political will and resolve is often confused. Being a stake holder in that decision and can do process is huge.

That is all I am really saying. It would be neat, IMO, if Collins had TLAM capability. Not that it would defeat the Chinese single handed, but it would likely give us tickets to the table where big decisions are being made. 6 or 12 or 48 TLAM isn't likely to bring China to its knees, but being able to give the order would help simply US decision making if there was some sort of impass. Which isn't the point, the point would be to raise Australia as an important stakeholder in dealing with US/China relations, and China and the US taking Australia seriously. China strong-arming Australia's rather flimsy surface combatant fleet, would likely be less confident if Collins had that kind of additional firepower and could be lurking anywhere in 1500km radius.

But I am also consistent that fitting any new capabilities to Collins is going to be a big ask. If it isn't part of the LOTE, which AFAIK it isnt', then its unlikely ever to gain that capability. With the withdrawal of Harpoon, that means loosing all missile antiship/land strike capability. Could the Collins have a kind of Grayback capability? maybe. Its not enough to end all discussions, but its in the mix.

Its not really questioning Collins ability to hunt, its just what happens when the big sexy new SSN come in, and if and how TLAM would be a useful fit to the existing Collins. Collins big threat isn't the Chinese, its our big new SSNs.. Finding a critical mission could be very important in that type of budget environment.
I think there is a very good chance that the Collins class may disappear fairly quickly once the first SSN comes into service.

The manpower issue alone could bring an end to them. A single Virginia requires two to three times the submariners as a single Colin’s sub. I am not sure we currently have the sailors to operate even three Collins subs. We haven’t got long to build up crew numbers either with the first Virginia due in 7 years.

The transition period between conventional subs and nuclear subs is tough enough. It means we will have maintain training for both conventional and nuclear submarines. Not many navies do that. The Russians, Chinese and Indians do and that’s it.

Getting rid of the Collins quickly and only relying on a couple of nukes will obviously affect our capability but running down the size of the sub fleet while transitioning isn’t without precedent. That is precisely what happened when we moved from the Oberons to the Collins. We had practically no submarine capability for several years.

Just quietly I think the government realised this as well and could be one of the reasons the US and UK will be basing submarines in Perth for well into the foreseeable future.

It will be a tough period moving into SSNs and I don’t think things will progress smoothly.

I think a lot will depend on what happens over the next several years. If a certain ex-US president finds himself back in power during that time it could throw a major spanner into our plans.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
6, sure, but 48? I think you’d be surprised.
As we have seen with Houthi drones and missiles, a handful have been able to disrupt global shipping, against the entire combined western + others (inc saudi, India etc) navies. So even small capability can have a huge effect.

There is capability, and there is lack of capability. 6 of anything is capability. The F-111's with conventional bombs weren't going to level Jakarta either. They didn't have to. Key infrastructure is key. Australia is always going to have to snipe at key targets.

China is heavily dependent on imported energy, and the oil & gas pipelines coming in from Eastern Russia, the Caucasus and the ‘Stans are well within the range of Tomahawks launched from the northern part of the Bay of Bengal. These aren’t point targets that you can defend, they’re thousands of kilometers long. There is no way the Chinese can defend all points along it.
Chokepoints, pipelines, remote bases. China has all of these. Say someone starts sinking our Navy, we could, by ourselves, fire off what we think is a fair and measured response. The US could then pick what they and how they want to join based on circumstances and our actions. Generally the first shots fired are basically open and unlikely to meet fully aware defenses.

Particularly if it then opens the door to the US to start doing their thing. If Australia's small surgical strike is hugely successful. China is likely to meet terms before it goes all the way.
I think a lot will depend on what happens over the next several years. If a certain ex-US president finds himself back in power during that time it could throw a major spanner into our plans.
I think it would be a good idea to be prudent.
TLAM on Collins is unlikely to be a peacetime loadout. We don't carry harpoons peacetime. But if the capability is there, the deterrent is at least in some form.
If Aukus falls apart or the SSN never come (for example, war comes first, or a new president, or the US becomes isolationist) then having Collins able to be a strategic deterrent is more important. Collins can be both a deterrent for shipping and land strikes. A TLAM console doesn't have to compromise its other capabilities hugely.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
As with the AWD’s many seem to be considering the magazine depth on the basis that strike equipped vessels would be expected to conduct all their other missions simultaneously and therefore the strike magazine availability would be limited.

I am not sure that is RAN’s position on the subject. I am sure they would posit that the vessels would be armed according to the needs of the mission they are given.

I am also sure that a Collins Class sub would never sail on an operational mission without carrying Mk.48 HWT’s at the least for their own self-defence. But how many such weapons would they need for self-defence? 10? 4? 6?

If the answer is 4, then up to 18x Tomahawks may be able to be carried, which in our context is probably nothing to sneeze at. It would require a very significant effort from RAAF for instance to deliver that many long ranged strike weapons to the range that Tomahawk will give us (especially on a Collins Class) and if a pair of Collins were deployed so equipped and potentially a Hobart Class similarly equipped for strike operations, then you’d see an available force of Tomahawk CM equipped vessels second only to that (at the present time) which the USN can deploy, unless the Royal Navy has purchased far more, or fired far less Tomahawks than has ever been publicly disclosed…

So while many of us may feel our capability might be inadequate, in many ways it might actually not be all that insignificant when compared to what others can generate.

The Russians for example seem to feel that launching half a dozen or so Kalibr’s from small naval vessels is a worthwhile tactical employment of such weapons, as they regrettably, regularly demonstrate in Ukraine…
How many Tomahawk could be fired in one Salvo from a Collins Tubes? I think it would be restricted to six tubes and then what? Hang around and load after giving your location away? How long would it take to reload another salvo of six missiles?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I’d say 50 knots under water vs 15 knots would make it hard to chase any SSN down unless it was within 20km and didn’t know you were there.
Yes, there are likely some SSN's that might be able to get into the 40 kts speed and sustain that, at least for a period of time. However one needs to also remember that there is likely to be some rather significant cavitation once a given hull form starts to move above certain speeds in water. Between the cavitation and other generated/radiating noise, any sub trying to go that fast is going to literally announcing its presence in an area.

As a matter of practice, I suspect that normal transits for most subs would be at speeds of less than 20 kts to try and avoid generating and radiating so much noise and thereby revealing its presence. AFAIK one of the major advantages that SSN's have in terms of speed is the ability to sustain submerged transit speeds without the need to either surface or snorkel to refresh the onboard air and run the diesels to recharge the batteries.

Another major advantage of SSN's is the ability to have greater sustained power generation and therefore able to fit and operate systems which have greater power demands and an overall increased power (and cooling) budget.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
How many Tomahawk could be fired in one Salvo from a Collins Tubes? I think it would be restricted to six tubes and then what? Hang around and load after giving your location away? How long would it take to reload another salvo of six missiles?
Then you employ the staff and cranes / hydraulics and so forth that the crew uses to reload the torpedo tubes at sea.

How long it takes I am sure is quite classified, but some few minutes at least per tube I would imagine.

The vessel may well re-position whilst this is occurring too I should also imagine. Why would they ‘hang around’ exactly after the noisy activity of firing cruise missiles?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think there is a very good chance that the Collins class may disappear fairly quickly once the first SSN comes into service.

The manpower issue alone could bring an end to them. A single Virginia requires two to three times the submariners as a single Colin’s sub. I am not sure we currently have the sailors to operate even three Collins subs. We haven’t got long to build up crew numbers either with the first Virginia due in 7 years.

The transition period between conventional subs and nuclear subs is tough enough. It means we will have maintain training for both conventional and nuclear submarines. Not many navies do that. The Russians, Chinese and Indians do and that’s it.

Getting rid of the Collins quickly and only relying on a couple of nukes will obviously affect our capability but running down the size of the sub fleet while transitioning isn’t without precedent. That is precisely what happened when we moved from the Oberons to the Collins. We had practically no submarine capability for several years.

Just quietly I think the government realised this as well and could be one of the reasons the US and UK will be basing submarines in Perth for well into the foreseeable future.

It will be a tough period moving into SSNs and I don’t think things will progress smoothly.

I think a lot will depend on what happens over the next several years. If a certain ex-US president finds himself back in power during that time it could throw a major spanner into our plans.
The US offer of Virginia's is intended to increase the number of allied submarines in the region. Reducing the number of Collins, or retiring them altogether is one of the things that could see US developing the view we are not serious about our existing capability. This red flag would cost congressional and presidential support for the transfer.
 

GregorZ

Member
As we have seen with Houthi drones and missiles, a handful have been able to disrupt global shipping, against the entire combined western + others (inc saudi, India etc) navies. So even small capability can have a huge effect.
Wow, that’s a slight exaggeration!
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Was looking at the UK forums…, looks like the Type 83 concept(with CEAFAR) has popped up again alongside a Hunter and QE carrier in a BAE systems google ad.


This comes after a concept drawing was spotted in a BAE pdf about ‘Fire Safety and Damage Control Warship Design - Now and to the Future’


Some info about its discovery from defence connect.


Thoughts on whether or not this would be a good fit for the Hobart replacement in the future or if the upgunned Hunter is a safer and more realistic option?
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Wow, that’s a slight exaggeration!
Kinda of. They achieved their aim of disrupting some of the maritime traffic. I would say their actions are generally opposed by many nations (including the west + some).

Of course it comes down to rules of engagement and strategy and political will. They didn't defeat them in a head to head contest. But they were able to achieve their aims despite essentially no power compared to massive power against them. The US is pretty good at shooting drones and missiles down, but they can't be everywhere. Neither can China.

Asymmetric war fighting has been known and practiced for thousands of years. Asymmetric capability shouldn't be undervalued.

Submarines are essentially asymmetric capability. They are at their best, acting like pirates, raiding commercial shipping. Submarines launching land attack is also I would argue asymmetric capability, hit and run. Submarines launching TLAM is, IMO a very powerful capability, because it could be anywhere at anytime. Resources required to mitigate the capability far outweigh the capability. I would add that the US also very much see value in that hence SSGN and Block V Virginia.

Thoughts on whether or not this would be a good fit for the Hobart replacement in the future or if the up gunned Hunter is a safer and more realistic option?
I think we are moving into the realm of the Hobarts replacement more quickly than anticipated.

I think the Type 83 is likely to be very much based on the Type 26. I would expect greater length, additional power and generation capability, and obviously a great VLS load out. I think in many ways the Australian Hunter is doing a lot of the development for a Type 83, in terms of radar, mast, systems, configuration etc.

The Hunters can carry more than 32 VLS. But that doesn't really make them an air warfare destroyer. IMO they would likely need more high speed capability, greater power, more than just 64 VLS. This requires perhaps a 2nd GT, perhaps more diesels, more fuel, etc.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Where are you getting these speeds from? If you don't know stop quessing. Do you know anything about submarine warfare?
Anything you say about SSN speeds would be a guess unless you have been at the helm of one. That was my guess. What’s yours? Let’s make it 30 knots… same point. A conventional sub would not in the terms of the OP …. Be able to chase a SSN. Sure stalk, hunt etc but given the mismatch in possible speed and duration of being able to maintain any speed either quiet or otherwise, I am fairly certain a conventional sub would keep up once any presence was known. Yeah I know heaps. I read Hunt for Red October and watch DAS Boot.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Yes, there are likely some SSN's that might be able to get into the 40 kts speed and sustain that, at least for a period of time. However one needs to also remember that there is likely to be some rather significant cavitation once a given hull form starts to move above certain speeds in water. Between the cavitation and other generated/radiating noise, any sub trying to go that fast is going to literally announcing its presence in an area.

As a matter of practice, I suspect that normal transits for most subs would be at speeds of less than 20 kts to try and avoid generating and radiating so much noise and thereby revealing its presence. AFAIK one of the major advantages that SSN's have in terms of speed is the ability to sustain submerged transit speeds without the need to either surface or snorkel to refresh the onboard air and run the diesels to recharge the batteries.

Another major advantage of SSN's is the ability to have greater sustained power generation and therefore able to fit and operate systems which have greater power demands and an overall increased power (and cooling) budget.
Yes the sustained speed is really the point. Cavitation is probably going to be created at higher speeds but who in the public knows really? I was just touching on the speed difference re a Collins chasing down a SSN. Stealth and surprise would be an advantage but if an enemy sub is identified at a distance how would the distance gap be closed?
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Yes the sustained speed is really the point. Cavitation is probably going to be created at higher speeds but who knows really? I was just touching on the speed difference re a Collins chasing down a SSN. Stealth and surprise would be an advantage but if an enemy sub is identified at a distance how would the distance gap be closed?
I do not claim any real knowledge of submarine warfare or any of the related naval or scientific disciplines. Having said that, please recall that when the ARA San Juan was lost on 17 November 2017 off the coast of Argentina north of the Falkland Islands, CTBTO hydrophones at listening posts on Ascension Island and the Crozet Islands detected what is believed have been the sounds of the underwater implosion of the sub. Given that these listening posts are thousands of kilometers from the site of the wreck, that does suggest that sounds can propagate very long distances underwater.

A sub that going at high speed, generating/radiating a significant amount of noise and doing so for any length of time, is going to be announcing its presence to everyone for potentially hundreds of kilometers around. Whilst you might be focusing the ability of a Collins-class SSG to 'intercept' a hostile sub moving so rapidly, you are managing to ignore the reality that potentially dozens (if not more) assets could provide an ASW response/solution. If the RAN had a surface warship with an embarked MH-60R 'Romeo' within 75 n miles of such a sub, then a response could be on location within ~30 minutes. Depending on where this hypothetical transit were occurring, other ADF assets like P-8A Poseidons might also be available. Similarly, ASW forces belonging to friendly/allied nations could also deploy and respond.

One of the greatest strengths of subs is that fact that where they are specifically, as well as what they are doing, is not typically known. They therefore will typically try and avoid giving themselves and their locations away.

Or to put it another way, having a sub zip around like a speedboat would like having a sniper going around wearing hi-vis and/or Dayglo Orange clothing.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Another article in the Australian about shortage of crews threatening to make the RAN pull more warships out of the water. We talk about ship capability and cost-effectiveness. Should we also be talking about effectiveness relative to crew numbers?


The recruiting problem is a serious one IMO. It could be used politically by opponents of Defence to justify cuts in funding. Does anyone know if any attitudinal studies have been done to understand why this problem exists? Anecdotally I have heard that applicants have to wait an inordinate amount of time before finding out if they are accepted, and this is uncompetitive in the current job market.
 

protoplasm

Active Member
Another article in the Australian about shortage of crews threatening to make the RAN pull more warships out of the water. We talk about ship capability and cost-effectiveness. Should we also be talking about effectiveness relative to crew numbers?
I’ve been attempting to get interested young people into the ADF for a while. It takes a months for them to move through (RAN and RAAF seem to be particularly bad). The majority of them have taken up other employment or study just because they can get in, signup, make other life decisions and move forward. The ADF looks disorganised and disinterested to potential applicants, and they make decisions accordingly.

There is plenty of interest in being in the ADF, but the recruitment process is a big part of the problem

The recruiting problem is a serious one IMO. It could be used politically by opponents of Defence to justify cuts in funding. Does anyone know if any attitudinal studies have been done to understand why this problem exists? Anecdotally I have heard that applicants have to wait an inordinate amount of time before finding out if they are accepted, and this is uncompetitive in the current job market.
 
Last edited:
Top