Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

Using the Birdon H260 hull form as the basis for a LOCSV would not be ideal. The Birdon hull form is intended for at least limited beaching. A better hull form on which to base the LOCSV would be the Fast Supply Vessels used to support offshore rigs. These have already formed the basis for the MUSV and the LUSV trialled by the USN. While they do have limitations, with possibly range being a significant one, these can be addressed or mitigated. This hull form is designed for much higher speed than the H260 hull form.

Yes speed is the H260's achilles heel. They are short, fat and dumpy and probably underpowered. Beaching hull designs are not designed for racing.

I'm not sure however that the fast supply vessel form is the long term solution either though. The FSV trades payload and range for speed as they are designed to get small high value equipment out to rigs within a few hours.

While the FSV style USV Ranger and Nomad are the current trial platforms (and doing well), I would not view they have the capacity for a large missile magazine. Looking at their recent SM6 firing trials, using the Mk70 containerised VLS (which as four cells), I doubt they could hold more than two of these (so 8 VLS total). Even an extended version of the FSV is going to have difficulty holding 8 MK70 containers for a 32 cell capacity.

One of the problems that I see with the Mk70 concept (a 40 ft sea container) is that it takes up too much horizontal space and most ships can't hold many. You either end up with an enormus flat tray style ship that starts to look like an aircraft carrier, or you move back to a verticle VLS system with the Mk41 for compactness. My thoughts are that an LOCSV will need to support a Mk41 to have sufficient missile capacity.

For a Mk41 you need a platform that can handle top weight as these things need about 8 metres for themselves, plus some space underneath. A 32 cell unit weighs about 60 tonnes, and with missiles, about double that (call it 150 tonnes with structural framework and services). So, you are talking about a ship that can handle a lot of balast to counter this. And fat, dumpy ships are good at that.

Remember that most of the GPF contenders in the 3,000 to 4,000 tonne range struggle with a 32 cell VLS, so this is not an easy task.

So, perhaps the optimal platform is somewhere in between the H260 and an FSV. The H260 would have the payload capacity and deck space necessary, but probably needs more of a traditional RO-RO hull (more elongated, with a bulbous bow) and bigger engines for higher speed.

30 kts would be great, but I think something that could do 18-21 kts would be functional.

 

[SammyC]

The later four of the Adelaide-class each got an 8 cell module. There’s some people who aren’t sure if those were tactical length or self defence length modules.

Hi Devo, I can't confirm formally, however I it was only ever intended for ESSM, with SM2 remaining with the Mk13 launcher.

The Mk41 VLS was way up forward and it had to stick above the deck a fair way to fit.

The mod 16 was also only made for the RAN FFG class, so was specifically built for this application.

My understanding was that it was the self defence length for the above reasons, but I could be wrong.

 

[d-ron84]

Hi Devo, I can't confirm formally, however I it was only ever intended for ESSM, with SM2 remaining with the Mk13 launcher.

The Mk41 VLS was way up forward and it had to stick above the deck a fair way to fit.

The mod 16 was also only made for the RAN FFG class, so was specifically built for this application.

My understanding was that it was the self defence length for the above reasons, but I could be wrong.

From Memory it was the Tactical Length, but as a GB I never worked on VLS (but I did play around with it as an FC) so I could be wrong.

 

[MickB]

Media releases to date indicate the LOSCV will utilise the Virtual Aegis and CEC pack for full remote fire control from an MFU. This is the new miniturised system and the Americans fit all of this into a single sea container along with its cooling and security requirements for the LOSV prototype program. It would go comfortably up front on the cargo deck. Otherwise all it needs is the CEC antenna, which is small and would be mounted on the bridge roof as high as possible.

No combat radar, no 9LV, no operator. Just the Mk41 and the virtual Aegis/CEC.

The CEC antenna is line of sight, so if it is mounted high enough it can easily be able to operate 30-50km from its parent MFU.

A 32 cell MK41 consumes about 100kW, adding all the other stuff, perhaps 250kW. That's a small generator. The H260 would have its own inbuilt power, so possibly a small increase in capacity might be needed. Else it could fit a containerised genset on the aft deck, but that's a bit messier.

The vessel speed is a limitation. 12 kts would not work for a surface task group. I would have thought this needs to be able to at least cruise at 18kts. One would think there are some larger engine options, and perhaps some hull design improvements (a beaching hull is not shaped for efficiency) that could obtain this.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[Pusser01]

Ballarat was fitted with 2x NSM test cannisters last Friday, it certainly looks different in front of the bridge compared to the Harpoon fit.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Confirmation Australia is ordering SM-3s for the AWDs.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-08-06/qa-defence-connect-dids-summit

 

[SammyC]

Confirmation Australia is ordering SM-3s for the AWDs.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-08-06/qa-defence-connect-dids-summit

View attachment 51587

Firstly, word of the day is "vicissitudes". I had to look that up in the dictionary.

Secondly that's to my recolection the first mention of SM3 for the RAN. Was that a slip of the tongue or was it a Freudian slip.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Sm-3 was certainly a possibility, but it was unclear if we would be happy with SM-6 capabilities or need the whole hog.
48 VLS starts to look skinny if you are loading it with TLAM, SM-3, SM-6, SM-2, ESSM. Certainly a buffet of missile flavors going on.

Combined with the ESSM upgrades on the existing remaining anzacs and the NSM on the hobarts and anzacs, there are some serious upgrading and fire power going with the RAN at the moment. We will certainly have some significant capabilities. While not a huge magazine, we will have reach and significant capabilities in the RAN.

 

[AndyinOz]

Ideas surrounding the potential for Australia to acquire some sort of ABM system/capability or at least be involved in the development have been tossed around for a long time by our political elites, back to the days of Nelson (Brendan not Horatio) Ballistic missile system 'moving closer'

 

[Bluey 006]

Ideas surrounding the potential for Australia to acquire some sort of ABM system/capability or at least be involved in the development have been tossed around for a long time by our political elites, back to the days of Nelson (Brendan not Horatio) Ballistic missile system 'moving closer'

Things are different now. There is credible risk of great power conflict; the capabilities of competitor nations and non-state actors have developed considerably; US primacy is non-existent or at least not respected; warning times have been reduced; emerging regional actors have acquired long range modern missiles and are increasingly more active' and less predictable; drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have rapidly proliferated; spheres of influence are shifting, hypersonic missiles are proliferating; space technology is rapidly evolving; confidence in global security institutions and mechanisms has diminished; good governance and the effectiveness of diplomacy have declined; and so on.

 

[John Fedup]

Things are different now. There is credible risk of great power conflict; the capabilities of competitor nations and non-state actors have developed considerably; US primacy is non-existent or at least not respected; warning times have been reduced; emerging regional actors have acquired long range modern missiles and are increasingly more active' and less predictable; drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have rapidly proliferated; spheres of influence are shifting, hypersonic missiles are proliferating; space technology is rapidly evolving; confidence in global security institutions and mechanisms has diminished; good governance and the effectiveness of diplomacy have declined; and so on.

BMD via land and on future River class ships seems to be likely for Canada…especially once junior is gone. A good method to support NORAD and perhaps lessen Trump anti-Canadian views, albeit the latter is unlikely.

 

[SammyC]

I'm wondering if the decision to move forward with SM3 in addition to SM6 is in part connected to deferring projects AIR6502/6503 which were looking at shore based BMD options (patriot and thaad style systems).

Rather than a land based solution, use the Hunters and Hobarts to protect shore assets as an interim with SM3.

I was however of the understanding that the full capability of the SM3 needs the Aegis blaseline 9 upgrade. So unlike the SM6 (which is compatible with BL8), this would need to wait for the scheduled Hobart class combat system upgrade. Am I correct?

 

[Going Boeing]

I'm wondering if the decision to move forward with SM3 in addition to SM6 is in part connected to deferring projects AIR6502/6503 which were looking at shore based BMD options (patriot and thaad style systems).

Rather than a land based solution, use the Hunters and Hobarts to protect shore assets as an interim with SM3.

I was however of the understanding that the full capability of the SM3 needs the Aegis blaseline 9 upgrade. So unlike the SM6 (which is compatible with BL8), this would need to wait for the scheduled Hobart class combat system upgrade. Am I correct?

My understanding is that the planned upgrade for the Hobart class is to AEGIS Baseline 9 and was ordered some time ago. I believe that the SPY-1D would also be upgraded but I can’t remember to what level. It certainly should be capable of launching and controlling SM3’s.

 

[SammyC]

Baseline 9 is good for SM3 (as it brings in the BMD management software), I just was not sure if baseline 8 can do the full capability for SM3.

 

[Stampede]

I understand Indo Pacific Endeavour 2024 has commenced.

Any feed back as to which RAN ships will be involved.

Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

Baseline 9 is good for SM3 (as it brings in the BMD management software), I just was not sure if baseline 8 can do the full capability for SM3.

BMD was available in 7 or earlier, but often the ship had to basically go into BMD mode for it to operate BMD munitions. Which as I understand it was basically restarting the computer. I imagine in a CBG, where you have say 3 or 4 destroyers and cruiser, having the cruiser just operate in BMD mode, and the other surrounding ships in air warfare defence mode, is probably acceptable. But for Australia's needs less realistic.

Aegis 7 like fitting on the Hobart's is circa ~2005. So like DDR2, maybe a dual quad core processor server so it was flat out just doing one thing. B.M.D capability isn't exactly all the same. I think before 7 they had separate BMD ships with specific BMD systems. These days BMD includes dealing with smart hypersonics and all sorts of stuff, while being able to do the regular AWD mission. More processing power, means you can use better sensors, and get better results.

A path for Australian BMD - Australian Defence Magazine

A path for Australian BMD, ballistic missile defence for Australia

www.australiandefence.com.au

It seems most existing navies are upgrading aegis but leaving the existing radars. The radars requiring too much modification and cost to change.

New South Korean Destroyers to Have BMD Capability

A trio of planned South Korean guided missile destroyers will be built with the capability to intercept ballistic missile threats, USNI News has learned. The addition of the capability will give the Republic of Korea (RoK) Navy a powerful organic BMD capability in addition to U.S. Army...

news.usni.org

 

[spoz]

Hobarts have baseline 7 at present; being upgraded to 9. You have to distinguish between baselines and upgrades; BL7 has been upgraded a number of times since its introduction. It was designed to do specific things; BL9 is designed to do others. BL7 as upgraded is fine for a medium zone air threats which is what it was designed to handle.. BL9 replaces that baseline with a new baseline that is designed for additional threats.

 

[Going Boeing]

Hobarts have baseline 7 at present; being upgraded to 9. You have to distinguish between baselines and upgrades; BL7 has been upgraded a number of times since its introduction. It was designed to do specific things; BL9 is designed to do others. BL7 as upgraded is fine for a medium zone air threats which is what it was designed to handle.. BL9 replaces that baseline with a new baseline that is designed for additional threats.

This old article confirms what you and StingrayOZ said about how much extra capability BL9 will give the Hobart class - very significant.

“Another of the planned upgrades will be the introduction of Aegis Baseline 9 to the DDGs. The ships are currently fitted with the Aegis Baseline 7.1 Refresh 2, ordered in the early days of the AWD program and some time before Baseline 9 was developed. It has been reported elsewhere that the SPY-1D(V) radar and SPQ-9B horizon search radar fitted on board the Hobart-class would bring the system closer to the U.S. Navy’s Baseline 8, but incorporating Baseline 9 will mark a big step up in capability for the DDGs.

Baseline 9 brings a true open architecture computer framework into the Aegis system, which allows easier integration of new improvements to capability than before, as well as what the U.S. Navy calls Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) which allows aircraft like the F-35 and Block III Super Hornet to identify and provide targeting solutions for ship-launched missiles to engage targets beyond the horizon and over land.

However, the biggest change is the addition of Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) capability to Baseline 9-equipped ships. Previously, U.S. Navy ships running earlier Aegis Baselines were either dedicated to the air warfare or missile defence missions only. IAMD will mean the ships will be able to perform both missions concurrently, bringing a big step change in versatility to the capability of the DDGs particularly in light of both China’s and North Korea’s stockpiles of ballistic missiles, although both the SM-6 and Raytheon RIM-161 SM-3 missile will be needed to take full advantage of the IAMD’s Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability.”

 

[ADMk2]

Confirmation Australia is ordering SM-3s for the AWDs.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2024-08-06/qa-defence-connect-dids-summit

View attachment 51587

Is that “confirmation” we are acquiring SM-3 or confirmation that Minister Conroy doesn’t know the difference between SM-2 and SM-3?

 

[ADMk2]

Hobarts have baseline 7 at present; being upgraded to 9. You have to distinguish between baselines and upgrades; BL7 has been upgraded a number of times since its introduction. It was designed to do specific things; BL9 is designed to do others. BL7 as upgraded is fine for a medium zone air threats which is what it was designed to handle.. BL9 replaces that baseline with a new baseline that is designed for additional threats.

Baseline 8 at present, they were updated a few years back.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/antiballistic-missile-capability-plannedaegis-upgrade/news-story/aa67a207625a977f1f4d939e37cf36e9

ADF supports Aegis Baseline 9 BMD test - Australian Defence Magazine

Elements of the RAN and RAAF have recently provided critical support for a US Navy Ballistic Missile System Defence (BMD) test within the Pacific Missile Range Facility off Hawaii.

www.australiandefence.com.au