Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

That is a thought that I have been pondering as well Reptilia.

While both Mitsubishi and Hanwa already make modern EASA radars for their respective platforms, I would not view they are on the same level as ceafar, particularly how we have integrated multiple frequencies into a small package. Additionally, our software is recognised as amongst the best (radars are just as much about programming for how to use the panels and interpret the return signals as the physical panels themselves).

Neither country would give up their production, but perhaps they would be open and interested in licencing ceafar. I'll go one step further suggest they could partner, or buy in, or jointly develop future radars.

Would the Aust government consider selling a minority/equal share in CEA to either Mitsubishi or directly to the Japanese government?

US ITARS restrictions could come into play though. I recall a number of years ago that the US gov't invested monies into CEA to help fund development of some tech, IIRC it was being referenced as AUSPAR at the time. One potential outcome of that funding is that the US could have a say in exports to, or investment by countries outside of either Australia or the US. Might be a non-issue, or the US might not be concerned about Japan as an Australian partner, but certainly could make things more complicated.

 

[SammyC]

If the s**t hits the fan, the supply of NSM’s would run out quickly so it wouldn’t surprise me to see Harpoons brought out of storage and fitted to the non Tier 1 & 2 ships. I suspect that Harpoon will remain in service on the Collins class for a while yet so all the supporting infrastructure will still be in place.



Apart from “power, cooling & physical space” requirements (which should be more abundant in the Mogami), would fitting the CEAFAR, 9LV, etc in the same configuration as the ANZAC class be particularly onerous? As all the software has been written and in service for a while integrated with a lot of the same systems as fitted to the Mogami. I’m definitely not pushing this in contravention of the “No Changes” policy but, the reported advantages of the CEAFAR/9LV system makes it highly desirable if it can be done in the very tight timeframe.

I suspect the harpoons will be stored safely in a warehouse somewhere, at least for a while. They will need maintenance and recharging as the explosives and fuel have an expiry date.

NSM/JSM local manufacture is still going to take a while. Mid 2026 for the factory. Production commencing in early 2027, with full rate (100 per year) from early 2028. So by 2030 it may have built say 250 missiles total. Not much of a warstock, particularly when considering the potential regional demand.

In regards to NSM manufacture, I know that the factory has been quoted as full production of 100 units per year, however $850 million should provide some flexibility to quickly expand if necessary. Might build a production line for instance that has the capacity to operate 24/7, but initially operate it on one 8 hour shift. Might leave space in the production shed for a second assembly line for a future expansion. Same methodology for suppliers such as rocket motors, turbines, sensors and explosives.

 

[Volkodav]

Any mockup we saw with the CEA Radar is just that. A mockup. To basically order a ship next February and have it in service before the end of the decade doesn't leave much time for integrating new systems. Having said that the "No Changes" mandate does sound a bit over the top,

How difficult it would really be to integrate missiles such as the NSM. The NSM is basically a shoot and forget missile. There didn't seem to be any problems just swapping out the Harpoon for NSM on HMAS Sydney.

The Capes don't actually have a combat system to integrate anything into. Everything on them is pretty much stand alone, many modern cars are better integrated.

This is an area where the Arafuras are miles ahead, they have a CMS. That however, doesn't make them into frigate substitutes.

It's actually easier to mix and match systems on platforms that are designed to have that sort of system integrated, than it is to fit a system that was never envisaged. I would suggest 9LV and CAEFAR would be quicker easier to integrate into any of the GP options than it was to do the successive upgrades and redesign work to the ANZACs.

 

[Bob53]

The conversion that you allude to is critical. On top of having factories that are ready to go we need a much greater Indigenous capacity to convert rocks into the materials needed to produce the weapons. Do we have the expansion capacity in our Steel mills to produce the high strength steels needed for warship/submarine/armoured vehicle repair and production? Do we have the rare earths processing capacity to produce the components needed? Do we have the means to manufacture the processors needed if we had to? It doesn't mean we need to be doing it now, it's the thinking about do we have the expansion capacity in the our systems to get from the mine to the final finish factory.

We are at the end of loooooooong SLOC which can be intercepted/disrupted. If we are to have a resilient capacity to produce weapons and whole defence systems, there needs to be planning for how this would all come together without importing materials or parts.

What you say here makes sense but even more so is fuel security. Some of the things on this wish list are currently caught up in years long environmental and aboriginal heritage reviews As to fuel security. We don’t have it. At all. We have 2 operational fuel refineries and they are only open due to government subsidisation. Knock those out and Australia has about 20 days of domestic fuel supply If imports are constrained.

 

[Bob53]

I suspect the harpoons will be stored safely in a warehouse somewhere, at least for a while. They will need maintenance and recharging as the explosives and fuel have an expiry date.

NSM/JSM local manufacture is still going to take a while. Mid 2026 for the factory. Production commencing in early 2027, with full rate (100 per year) from early 2028. So by 2030 it may have built say 250 missiles total. Not much of a warstock, particularly when considering the potential regional demand.

In regards to NSM manufacture, I know that the factory has been quoted as full production of 100 units per year, however $850 million should provide some flexibility to quickly expand if necessary. Might build a production line for instance that has the capacity to operate 24/7, but initially operate it on one 8 hour shift. Might leave space in the production shed for a second assembly line for a future expansion. Same methodology for suppliers such as rocket motors, turbines, sensors and explosives.

250 NSM doesnt sound like much? How many ships are we going to need to sink?

 

[iambuzzard]

250 NSM doesnt sound like much? How many ships are we going to need to sink?

The thing is to get the missiles through their countermeasures. Look at what the Ukrainians have managed to do. And the Israeli Iron Dome. You will never have a 100% kill rate. A lot of rounds would be intercepted.

 

[Todjaeger]

250 NSM doesnt sound like much? How many ships are we going to need to sink?

NSM is not 'just' an AShM, but can also be used as a LACM. Moreover, even if a ship were to launch a full volley of eight missiles at another warship, particularly one with advanced radar, CMS and area air and point defence missiles. Consider for a moment how many Type 55 DDG's (or perhaps CG's) the PLAN has in service, or will be getting brought into service. These vessels are supposed to be China's equivalent to the USN's Aegis-kitted Ticonderoga-class CG. It is distinctly possible that Australia might need to engage in volumes of fire to achieve a single hit, and even then, these are comparatively small missiles with a 120 kg warhead (RGM-84 Harpoon warhead is ~221kg, and RBS-15 is ~200kg, whilst RGM-109E is ~450 kg) this could potentially achieve a mission-kill, but IMO it would be unlikely to actually sink a vessel unless it was either rather small, or poorly crewed.

There are also numbers to consider. Allegedly, the RAN MFU numbers should grow to about 20 majors by the mid-2040's, with the Hunter-class build and SEA 3000 GPF. Now it will be years before the RAN gets up to 20 major warships in service, and even then, it would be very unlikely to actually have all 20 available or deployed on ops at the same time what with maintenance, training and other service cycle needs. However, if say a dozen were actually on or fit for deployment, that would mean Australia might have up to 120 NSM's embarked on various vessels across the fleet. If the total warstock is 'only' 250 NSM, that means effectively a single full reload per deployed or deployable vessel in the event of conflict. That could potentially mean Australia might quickly exhaust the supplies of ordnance in the event of a modern, major conflict.

Or look at this from another perspective. The US has built examples of the Harpoon family of missiles for decades and sold them to other countries around the globe. A defence reporting article from almost a decade ago (20 April 2015, archival link here) stated that the US had produced approximately 7,500 Block II Harpoons, which means that the number should be higher and possibly by quite a bit once all the other Harpoon versions are factored in. Now yes, the US has a significantly larger defence industrial base than Australia, as well as a much larger economy and annual defence budget, but Australia's number is a thirtieth of the US number. However, these sorts of numbers does enable the US to be a resupply source for other nations in the event of a conflict. If Australia keeps maintaining a comparatively small warstock, then it could easily end up with Australia depending on the US for a munitions resupply.

 

[ADMk2]

250 NSM doesnt sound like much? How many ships are we going to need to sink?

Locally manufacture isn’t the only way we acquire missiles.

The NSM we fired at RIMPAC 24, wasn’t made locally…

I suspect 100x AUR’s per year, is an aspirational and sustainable production run for envisaged purchases and the level of funding that is expected to be provided to it. If additional orders are made, or usage rates climb for some reason (aka operational usage) and funding increases, then I am certain capacity to expand production will be present…

 

[Salinger]

Japan to participate in Australia's plan to introduce a new type of ship
Competition with other countries for orders for the development of a prototype based on the ‘Mogami’ class destroyer.

オーストラリアの新型艦導入計画、日本が参画へ…「もがみ型」護衛艦ベースの開発で他国と受注競争

【読売新聞】　オーストラリア政府の新型艦の導入計画を巡り、日本政府が正式に参画の意思を伝達したことが分かった。今年６月には、豪政府の求めに応じて海上自衛隊の「もがみ型」護衛艦の技術情報を豪側に開示しており、もがみ型をベースにした共同

www.yomiuri.co.jp

The Japanese Government has formally communicated its intention to participate in the Australian Government's plan to introduce a new type of ship. In June this year, at the request of the Australian Government, Japan disclosed technical information on the Maritime Self-Defence Force's Mogami class destroyers to the Australian side, and intends to compete with other countries for orders with a joint development plan based on the Mogami class.

A number of Japanese government officials have revealed that a 2-plus-2 foreign and defence ministerial meeting between the Australian and Japanese governments is scheduled to be held in Australia on 5 September, at which joint development is also expected to be discussed.

 

[SammyC]

250 NSM doesnt sound like much? How many ships are we going to need to sink?

I would have a view that we would use ammunition in a conflict way faster than people think.

My assessment of conflicts like Ukraine, indicates that peacetime ammunition production (where we are today) is about one- two orders of magnitude less than it needs to be. So when we think we need 10 missiles, we actually need 100-1,000.

If for instance a Hobart were to engage a single enemy combatant, it would likely fire all eight NSM missiles (it's entire magazine) at once, in the hope that one might get through. If it had an LOCSV in tow, it would likely launch what it had too. Call it 16 NSM missiles in a volley.

In defence (flip the picture), the Hobart would need to shield against something similar from the other ship. Standard practice with ESSM/SM2 is to fire two shots per incomming missile. So for 16 incomming, it would launch 32. Perhaps it would need a further 4-8 for anything that got through the initial screen (call these RAM).

So a single hot confrontation (two ships, 1 on 1) could potentially expend 50 strike and defence missiles per ship, (likely within a few minutes). Possibly for no outcome, with both ships sailing away with their original paint afterwards to reload.

How do you break this outcome. Volume. Add a buddy (say a GPF) for a second strike, or carry more strike missiles yourself (second or third LOCSV), or launch something from shore or air (say six F35s with 2 JSMs each, and another four armed with AMRAAMs for protection). So now that 50 missiles in a single confrontation becomes 100 or 150 in a multiple attack scenario, with 30-50 of those being strike missiles (NSM/JSM).

Maybe in this outcome a couple of ships got destroyed or heavily damaged. To achieve that, a very large portion of ammunition inventory got written off, and something like $200-300 million expended on a spectacular fireworks show. On a small battle. That 250 missiles in the cupboard gets depleted fairly rapidly following more than a couple of such confrontations.

In a major war, there might be a dozen or more such scenarios happening simultaneously over the region with allied ships, consuming thousands of missiles in a few days/weeks. They will need immediate replenishment and our allies will look to us to support this.

So, in my view, an in country war stock of NSMs is more like 2,500 units, and a production rate that can be accelerated to around 1,000 per annum to keep up with consumption.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Japanese, Australian foreign and defense chiefs agree to boost security ties | NHK WORLD-JAPAN News

Foreign and defense ministers of Japan and Australia have agreed to strengthen security cooperation amid China's growing assertiveness.

www3.nhk.or.jp

They also agreed to upgrade the interoperability of cruise missiles that Japan plans to use to beef up its counterstrike capabilities.

I would assume this is about US/AU ships being able to fire Japanese weapons, and Japanese ships able to fire US weapons (beyond aegis).Because resupplying at Japan makes sense, and using what ever round of any production line is now a priority.

No one wants to be locked into a situation where you have pile of munitions, but can't fire them, not because they don't fit or aren't useful, but because they haven't spent 6 months and $1m to integrate them.

I also think Japan would be interested in setting up second supply in Australia for munitions.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would have a view that we would use ammunition in a conflict way faster than people think.

My assessment of conflicts like Ukraine, indicates that peacetime ammunition production (where we are today) is about one- two orders of magnitude less than it needs to be. So when we think we need 10 missiles, we actually need 100-1,000.

If for instance a Hobart were to engage a single enemy combatant, it would likely fire all eight NSM missiles (it's entire magazine) at once, in the hope that one might get through. If it had an LOCSV in tow, it would likely launch what it had too. Call it 16 NSM missiles in a volley.

In defence (flip the picture), the Hobart would need to shield against something similar from the other ship. Standard practice with ESSM/SM2 is to fire two shots per incomming missile. So for 16 incomming, it would launch 32. Perhaps it would need a further 4-8 for anything that got through the initial screen (call these RAM).

So a single hot confrontation (two ships, 1 on 1) could potentially expend 50 strike and defence missiles per ship, (likely within a few minutes). Possibly for no outcome, with both ships sailing away with their original paint afterwards to reload.

How do you break this outcome. Volume. Add a buddy (say a GPF) for a second strike, or carry more strike missiles yourself (second or third LOCSV), or launch something from shore or air (say six F35s with 2 JSMs each, and another four armed with AMRAAMs for protection). So now that 50 missiles in a single confrontation becomes 100 or 150 in a multiple attack scenario, with 30-50 of those being strike missiles (NSM/JSM).

Maybe in this outcome a couple of ships got destroyed or heavily damaged. To achieve that, a very large portion of ammunition inventory got written off, and something like $200-300 million expended on a spectacular fireworks show. On a small battle. That 250 missiles in the cupboard gets depleted fairly rapidly following more than a couple of such confrontations.

In a major war, there might be a dozen or more such scenarios happening simultaneously over the region with allied ships, consuming thousands of missiles in a few days/weeks. They will need immediate replenishment and our allies will look to us to support this.

So, in my view, an in country war stock of NSMs is more like 2,500 units, and a production rate that can be accelerated to around 1,000 per annum to keep up with consumption.

I myself tend to look at PGM usage data from the US as a guide, both in terms of rate of utilization/consumption in conflict, as well as relative effectiveness.

This is part of the reason why I question Australia getting Tomahawk, because apart from a fairly small warstock of strike missiles, Australia just does not have the platforms for the needed volumes of fire to be effective.

Now me being me, whilst more/greater warstock of NSM would be nice, I would rather Australia have more ESSM or SM-2/6, or equivalent. Better still would be domestic assembly and/or fabrication with enough orders getting placed regularly to maintain production as well as establish an effective warstock.

As an alternate to, or perhaps it might be thought of as an adjunct, would be for Australia to approach the US about establishing a joint munitions storage depot in Australia, where the US can safely and securely store some of their warstocks closer to potential conflict areas. The idea being it might be advantageous to the US if a CSG, MEU or naval TF needing munitions resupply does not have to head all the way back to a US base in Guam, Hawaii or US coast, or depend on a resupply vessel which is coming from one of those areas. Instead, they might be able to head to Australia for resupply, or there could be US munitions ships which can resupply in Australia.

 

[Stampede]

Something to consider regarding SEA 3000 is that we have a federal election due within the next 12 months.
While this project appears to have bipartisan support in the public domain, things can change.
An election due later this year in the USA will also give some clarity or uncertainty as to what we can expect from our major ally in their next term of office.
Back home desperate Politian's can / could / will seek political capital when needed.
While SEA 3000 has some merits, at a time of constant talk of the "cost of living" a mega dollar defence project complete with a significant overseas build will increasingly become a tough sell.

Bi partisan support, greens and independent's.
Watch this space.

Major military expo at the Melbourne convention centre this coming week is looking like a news story beyond the subject matter of the exhibitors.
Big demonstration's planned.
What eventuates time will tell but this conversation would have not have been so prevalent days gone bye.

That said, the Mogami Class looks much better that a Cape with NSM.

Starting to warm to the Japanese offer.

Cheers S

 

[Armchair]

Something to consider regarding SEA 3000 is that we have a federal election due within the next 12 months.
While this project appears to have bipartisan support in the public domain, things can change.
An election due later this year in the USA will also give some clarity or uncertainty as to what we can expect from our major ally in their next term of office.
Back home desperate Politian's can / could / will seek political capital when needed.
While SEA 3000 has some merits, at a time of constant talk of the "cost of living" a mega dollar defence project complete with a significant overseas build will increasingly become a tough sell.

Bi partisan support, greens and independent's.
Watch this space.

Major military expo at the Melbourne convention centre this coming week is looking like a news story beyond the subject matter of the exhibitors.
Big demonstration's planned.
What eventuates time will tell but this conversation would have not have been so prevalent days gone bye.

That said, the Mogami Class looks much better that a Cape with NSM.

Starting to warm to the Japanese offer.

Cheers S

I don’t see how either major party would gain political advantage from promising to cancel ship building projects in WA (without replacement). Anything could happen with a change of government or minister but the changes would be after the election rather than as a vote winning tactic.

 

[Reptilia]

I sort of get the feeling the SEA 3000 frigate design has already been chosen.
I’ve not come across many articles where Korea and Japan are cooperating on long range missiles or other military tech, just more exercises between the 2.(and the U.S)
Australia currently has multiple co-op programs with the Japanese Navy. 1 eg, Lasers(Mitsubishi Electric)
.

 

[Stampede]

I don’t see how either major party would gain political advantage from promising to cancel ship building projects in WA (without replacement). Anything could happen with a change of government or minister but the changes would be after the election rather than as a vote winning tactic.

Good point.....WA bats above its weight in a federal election.
Need to keep them happy.
That said, I feel were in for an interesting political ride.


Cheers S

 

[iambuzzard]

Something to consider regarding SEA 3000 is that we have a federal election due within the next 12 months.
While this project appears to have bipartisan support in the public domain, things can change.
An election due later this year in the USA will also give some clarity or uncertainty as to what we can expect from our major ally in their next term of office.
Back home desperate Politian's can / could / will seek political capital when needed.
While SEA 3000 has some merits, at a time of constant talk of the "cost of living" a mega dollar defence project complete with a significant overseas build will increasingly become a tough sell.

Bi partisan support, greens and independent's.
Watch this space.

Major military expo at the Melbourne convention centre this coming week is looking like a news story beyond the subject matter of the exhibitors.
Big demonstration's planned.
What eventuates time will tell but this conversation would have not have been so prevalent days gone bye.

That said, the Mogami Class looks much better that a Cape with NSM.

Starting to warm to the Japanese offer.

Cheers S

I concur. The evolved Mogami looks way ahead of the others in capability, plus the manning level is a major plus.

 

[StevoJH]

I concur. The evolved Mogami looks way ahead of the others in capability, plus the manning level is a major plus.

The unknown is the cost.

How much do they cost as a complete unit? What does the Japanese provide Mitsubishi as government furnished equipment that needs to be priced in?

 

[Reptilia]

People’s thoughts on CODAG (Mitsubishi Mogami) vs CODLOG (Hanwha Daegu/Ocean 4300) + (Hyundai Chungnam)
1 of only a few pros for the Korean frigates, that and probably cost, build time(3 apparently can be delivered by 2029 if selection made soon) and the frequency in which they update ships systems.

 

[John Fedup]

CODAG will still offer decent speed if the diesel or GT fails whereas CODLOG’s GT failure only offers low speed electric motor operation. However for quiet operation needed for ASW, electric is an advantage. Not sure about the cost for each. The more expensive IEP propulsion used in the QE class and Zumwalt is the future IMHO, certainly for larger warships (12,000+ tons).