Yep, but following Newton‘s Third Law of Motion, when the gun is fired the recoil will force the mexeflote half a NM astern.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Some of the commentary on the Tier 2 selection seems similar to the SEA1180 discussions on OCV and then OPV that I read. At the times some posters advocated for the most heavily armed, capable warship in its weight range.
Nothing wrong with that (as an argument about what government should do as opposed to what it will do) but according to AusGov‘s stated approach in accepting DSR recommendations they will not be looking for the most capable ship, or the ship with the biggest growth margins for future refit, but for the minimum viable capability that can be delivered on time and budget (to minimise strategic risk).
We know what the government think the time line for the first three and the total number of ships will be, we also know that the government has an idea as to how much it intends to pay for the first three. If all contenders can meet the schedule and price and deliver the minimal viable capability then they would all still be in the frame but that does not mean the selection would be for the best, most capable, most adaptable ship (I don’t have any problem with posters advocating for such but they are likely to be disappointed).
So to take the debate about 32 vs. 16 VLS. If a ship with 32 VLS is selected that will not because 32 is better than 16 but because 32 VLS will have been identified as the minimum necessary for the capability (a general purpose frigate optimised for undersea warfare) during its likely service life. My guess is the view has already been formed that 8 VLS will not be viable in the 2030s (hence no TRANSCAP).
That could change but the most likely way for it to change in the Australian context is following a change of government or prime minister (Just as we have seen most recently with the Hunter and Arafura numbers).
edit: corrected “ASW“ to “undersea”
Nothing wrong with that (as an argument about what government should do as opposed to what it will do) but according to AusGov‘s stated approach in accepting DSR recommendations they will not be looking for the most capable ship, or the ship with the biggest growth margins for future refit, but for the minimum viable capability that can be delivered on time and budget (to minimise strategic risk).
We know what the government think the time line for the first three and the total number of ships will be, we also know that the government has an idea as to how much it intends to pay for the first three. If all contenders can meet the schedule and price and deliver the minimal viable capability then they would all still be in the frame but that does not mean the selection would be for the best, most capable, most adaptable ship (I don’t have any problem with posters advocating for such but they are likely to be disappointed).
So to take the debate about 32 vs. 16 VLS. If a ship with 32 VLS is selected that will not because 32 is better than 16 but because 32 VLS will have been identified as the minimum necessary for the capability (a general purpose frigate optimised for undersea warfare) during its likely service life. My guess is the view has already been formed that 8 VLS will not be viable in the 2030s (hence no TRANSCAP).
That could change but the most likely way for it to change in the Australian context is following a change of government or prime minister (Just as we have seen most recently with the Hunter and Arafura numbers).
edit: corrected “ASW“ to “undersea”
Last edited:
I wondered the same thing. If they are crewed and unprotected then they would be escorted If there was a threat (Not all potential adversaries have anti surface capabilities though).
If you think of a Hobart and a LOCSV as a pair with 80 cells then that is the magazine that needs to be monitored and reloaded In an operation. Imagine a LOCSV supporting a littoral operation with say 24 Tomahawks and 8 LRASM (or SM-6) The Tomahawks might be used up but the other cells would remain available to contribute to protecting the fleet.
I think things have changed. The US is finding its destroyers are intercepting multiple targets a day. US planning and briefings about the future are terrifying, even if things are pretty good over the 2030 period. We are already seeing global shipping being disrupted. Commercial ships being sunk. And that really isn't directly connected to the major conflicts in Ukraine or the upcoming around Taiwan. That is just frayed edges of geopolitics.
While money and crewing are still real and hard limits, there seems to be some understanding that we are going to grow.
Ultimately that does mean in 2027-2028 less funding for education, healthcare restricted particularly to the elderly, no more tax deductible investments, higher taxes, lower pensions, borrowing. It may even mean some thing that motivates people to join, if not outright conscription. Anything not related to war output will be less important.
This may be a big issue now, but when you are actually at war, or near a state of war, less so. Look at Ukraine. No one in Ukraine is complaining about negative gearing or tax breaks for those over $200k. Those things are less important when you have thousands of citizens dying, conscript everyone up to 45 and are fighting an existential fight.
The next conflict isn't going to be some small peace keeping, leadership regime change type of job. Its high intensity conflict with a peer adversary in the type we haven't seen in over 70 years, perhaps never. Simulations include the US using half its airforce and half its fleet, if it wins. If the US is still a cohesive actor on the international stage, which isn't a given either.
The government has given us pretty clear options that it is looking at, for this forum and general public discussion we can accept discussions around that. Funding and crewing a legitimate issues, they always are, even in war time, even with a war economy and conscription. Pipelines for production and crew training can only carry so much and do so much.
Our planning is clearly indicating we are heading into a WW2 type event. We believe we have 3-5 years to prepare. Any planning beyond 3-5 years is, not particularly relevant. I absolutely cannot press how the time element is critical to these decisions. There are no extensions, just statistics indicating they will be too late. It may already be too late.
In that case we may get 3-8 new ships in that time. If we are short crewing, we will de-crew older, less effective ships and platforms. That may include LHDs, Anzacs, etc.
If minimum viable does come to be 32 VLS for a small GP frigate, what does that say for the huge Hunters I wonder?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Hunters will have a top-of-the-line sensor-CMS fit, with Aegis and an extremely powerful CEAFAR radar. The GP Frigates will almost certainly not get Aegis (too expensive) and if they get CEAFAR it will be a scaled down system. No matter how many missiles you put on a ship, they are only ever going to be as good as the information they are being fed.
I suspect the same will happen to these vessels when they expend their missiles as will happen to any other surface warship, They will have to head back to port for reloads.
I think there are more questions than answers at the moment. For example these ships would need to be defended. I doubt they will be fitted with the extensive anti-missile, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine systems of a frontline warship. In fact they would probably struggle to defend themselves against a boatload of determined fisherman wanting to board them. As far as damage control is concerned forget it, if they have a crew they will need to keep up with those abandon ship drills.
Effectively I see these vessels as expendable missile barges that will deliver their payload and if they survive make their way back to port for rearming. Perhaps they could be fitted out for other missions but really I would struggle to categorise them as warships. What they will mostly do is just give warships such as the Hobart access to an additional 32 VLS.
Let's wait and see.
Sure wiki and display models at expo's show 32 VLS but nothing official.
Defence site mentions systems and weapons but not VLS numbers.
It maybe or maybe not 32.
Await Hunter Class clarity.
Tier two I'd guess will prioritise time to service.
What that looks like is speculative.
Not saying more cells are not warranted, just alot of ingredients in making the RAN future fleet going forward.
Probably the most important thing is commitment.
An actual decision made next year for a new class of vessel.
Who, what, where, numbers and time frame.
Cheers S
It's a concept that could take many forms.
I'd agree that they will have less, not more.
A missile barge to compliment the fleet in speed and distance.
Something that can carry 100 t loaded 32 cell VLS cluster.
A vessel sized accordingl.
What are we looking at in size.
Probably not that big.
A 100t cube plus ASM launchers with some comms for linking to a mother ship and navigation.
Corvette, frigate, something bigger.
Cheers S
I honestly had never considered this option before. I wonder if the Canberra's would be used as supply and hospital ships if most of the crew was shifted over to crew the tier 1/2 ships.
I'm quite puzzled by this supposed optionally crewed ship. Afaik, it doesn't exist, and if it's just a pure drone, well, I don't see why it's included in the front end ship numbers. Since naval drones of that size are being in the test stage only, like Loyal WIngman, I honestly don't count them in the front end ship numbers. I have to admit, I'd always thought it'd be more like 12 ASW Hunter's and 6-9 AAW Hunter's, if numbers were going to increase.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Why would you not want it to sink? Better for everyone to have M777s as a reef....
iambuzzard
Active Member
Will the Hunters have the anti-ballistic capabilities of the Hobarts?
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I don’t think that there’s any information available publicly that could answer that question but, this pic (courtesy of Reddit) was posted earlier in this thread and, if it is accurate, it shows radar panels (the small green ones) towards the top of the mast facing skyward which are possibly there to detect ballistic threats.
Last edited:
My understanding of how LOCSVs will operate is that while in company of the Hobart/Hunter they would obviously come under the defensive umbrella of that ship.
If both expend majority of missiles then both return for reloading. So the LOCSV still is escorted.
But if the LOCSV has expended its missiles and the Hobart/Hunter is to remain on station the decision must be made if the situation warrants the risk of sending it alone for resupply.
If yes then this is another area where unmanned comes in, it can be sent back to port unescorted without putting lives at risk.
So yes to some extent it is expendable. But I think the still present Hobart/Hunter will be considered a bigger threat and thus a higher priority target.
Also there is also the possibility that other assets can be coordinated to cover the LOCSV while in transit eg: tier 2 vessels, airpower, SSNs, allied vessels etc.
If fitted with the Adaptable Deck Launch System this may not be an issue as it looks like they can be reloaded at sea.
Last edited:
d-ron84
Member
That pic still has the CAMM launchers Fwd and Aft, as well as the Naval Decoy system, both in use by the RN, not the RAN.
However if that is a correct CEA mast then those top little panels are more likely to be the Illuminator panels.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The Reddit site (see post #7,675) indicates that the source of that graphic is CEA and the CEAMOUNT illuminator arrays are shown in Red. The Green arrays including the smaller ones at the top of the mast are claimed to be L band.
So I’m perplexed as to what the 6 Arafura class OPV will be tasked with.
It does look like they could be on rotational deployment offshore.. Lombrum perhaps.. Fiji perhaps?
but what will the be actually good at?
Where is the MCM/Survet vessel at now that the Arafura class has been cancelled?
will Lurssen still undertake 8 further vessels to preform the MCM/Survey as planned or has this been cancelled too?
It’s just really hard to find anything on these potential vessels and much needed ones!
It does look like they could be on rotational deployment offshore.. Lombrum perhaps.. Fiji perhaps?
but what will the be actually good at?
Where is the MCM/Survet vessel at now that the Arafura class has been cancelled?
will Lurssen still undertake 8 further vessels to preform the MCM/Survey as planned or has this been cancelled too?
It’s just really hard to find anything on these potential vessels and much needed ones!
My understanding is that the Hunters, like the Hobarts will be BMD capable, at least for in atmosphere threats.
From what I have read it is not necessary to have vertical facing panels for BMD capability. I could be wrong, but here is what I found.
I will also caveat that I am a marine engineer talking about weapons stuff. That's always dangerous.
Theory says that aesa style panels can scan accurately in the order of 60 deg from centre. With the slope of the Hunter mast, the main panels can probably see in the order of 70-80 deg from the horizontal. So there might be a small blind spot directly above with the Hunter configuration but that is all.
Looking at the Hobarts and Burkes fitted with the alternative spy radar system, their panels seem to be set up similarly (no panel pointing upwards, all located on the sides). So they probably have the same blind spot.
BMD capable radars also need to have high power output and high resolution. Literature suggests that the Hunter ceafar panels have both features and are just as capable if not better than the spy.
The Hobarts are getting BMD capability with their Aegis baseline 9 upgrade. This is a software/computer upgrade, but my understanding is no change to the radar panels. Hunters hopefully should come with baseline 9 already fitted.
The other part of the equation is the missile. SM6 has terminal phase BMD capability (can hit it in the atmosphere) and Australia has placed orders for this missile in preparation for the Hobart upgrade. The Hunter mk41 VLS is the larger one so it can hold the SM6.
SM3 is however necessary for ex atmosphere defence. My understanding is that both the upgraded Hobarts and Hunters would be capable of using this missile, however the Australian government has not placed any orders for it.
The Arafura Class are yet to enter service so at this stage they are somewhat a unknown.
Brunei have had one of their vessels visit Darwin so it does give us a feel of this Lurrsen 80m vessel.
Longer, wider and heavier than the Capes , with a multi use flight/multi mission deck complete with larger crewing options, one would assume the OPVs will offer some capability the Capes cannot.
Both the Capes and the OPVs will provide a balance constabulary force for government .
As to survey and MCM ,we'll just have to see how that evolves.
I do fear the OPVs will now be a dammed vessel due to the politics of changing the fleet around so much.
They were the winning bid of three competitors to provide an off shore patrol vessel.
In that role they should be OK so let's not have any other expectations for the class going forward.
Cheers S
Yes, I understand that. What I was trying to question though, is if they come to the conclusion that a small, tier 2 GP frigate needs 32 VLS minimum, what does that say about a large tier 1 combatant, possibly twice the displacement, fitted with the best of the best, being AEGIS and CEAFAR? Does that mean that they are horribly under armed? If 32 is seems as a minimum for a small tier 2, then what’s right for large tier 1s?