Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[iambuzzard]

Further to Sammy C's comments, I would say this is a question of design intent. Modern SSMs are not designed to penetrate a battleship's armour, and so they probably couldn't do as built. But if it became a requirement, I'm sure SSM warhead designs could be changed so that they could penetrate thick armour.

Most modern warships are considered "out of action" once their sensors and systems are knocked out. That is very hard to stop, and so a high explosive SSM warhead hitting a warship will render it ineffective quickly. This is not a new problem. In the WWII Second (Night) battle of Guadalcanal, the US battleship South Dakota was effectively knocked out early when a power failure took out its fire control and radar, rendering it blind in the night action. Its main belt armour was not penetrated.

Modern SSMs are large and have big warheads - 200+ kg of explosives. They are not designed for armour penetration. But what if they were? Consider the much smaller warheads on modern infantry anti-tank missiles. They have shaped charge warheads to burn their way through armour. A 1980s TOW 2 could penetate 500mm of armour with a 6kg warhead. That is as much as any battleship had. (The Yammato main belt was 16" = 400mm). So you can see that if a modern NSM with a 120kg warhead was fitted with a shaped charge, it could penetrate far more.

Also, whilst not heavily armoured compared to WWII warships, the steel on a modern warship hull (10+mm) is still a lot thicker than on a Toyota Corolla (1 to 3mm)

My wife has a Corolla. With all the dings she's put in it it could do with some armour!

 

[downunderblue]

Korea is also very interested in Australia, but even they recognize that Japan has gone after Australia with tremendous unexpected fury. To the level they are now trying to re-assess they current state of play, because the Japanese seem to be acting very proactively, like they are depending on it and know stuff.

Interesting post.

The new Japanese PM (former DefMin) seems to have come to power with ideas of a Asian based NATO like mutual security alliance. He was recently quoted stating "absence of a collective self-defence system like NATO in Asia means that wars are likely to break out because there is no obligation for mutual defence"

Commentary: No one wants an Asian NATO, except Japan’s new PM Ishiba

Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is a proponent of a collective defence system in Asia to counter China. Its appeal is not so clear for Southeast Asia, say RSIS’ Benjamin Ho and SMU’s William A Callahan.

www.channelnewsasia.com

This expectedly didn't go well down with ASEAN and others (and he may have toned it down), but the general idea has merit. Clearly our relationship with Japan is getting stronger regardless, which is a good thing.

Re GPF, from the outside it looks very Japan v ROK, with the Europeans not even close. That makes a lot of sense imo fwiw.

Can I ask your opinion on whether the Japanese would be willing to engage in joint development of certain mutually beneficial required technologies? I could see CEARFAR or Nulka offering a product that JMSDF may want to integrate but also Japanese technologies that would benefit AU. Whilst I imagine we wouldn't want to move to far out of the US ecosystem, would there benefit in reviewing GWEO to find systems we could jointly develop, manufacture, adopt, and stock in qty?

GWEO is just one example, but I assume there are many opportunities here. I assume interoperability will be important on both sides, with increased training or joint patrols becoming more common?

Again, there seems to be a lot of geopolitical and practical opportunities attached to a Mogami deal, especially as part of a new enhanced relationship.

Interesting times indeed.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Can I ask your opinion on whether the Japanese would be willing to engage in joint development of certain mutually beneficial required technologies? I could see CEARFAR or Nulka offering a product that JMSDF may want to integrate but also Japanese technologies that would benefit AU. Whilst I imagine we wouldn't want to move to far out of the US ecosystem, would there benefit in reviewing GWEO to find systems we could jointly develop, manufacture, adopt, and stock in qty?

I will leave the relative merits of particular systems to others but I also think there would be a lot of merit in Australia partnering more with Japan (and South Korea) and less with Europe or even USA for many areas of defence technology in future. Two of the most practical reasons are cost and speed. Cost is obvious. Japan and Korea are both efficient and cost effective shipbuilders.

For speed of delivery for weapons and systems, Japan and ROK also have the advantage of potentially bypassing what have become very long lead times with some NATO systems, notably from US suppliers, that need to be ordered years before delivery. The queues for some popular items of US kit have blown out since the Ukraine War. Australia would not do the US economy much harm if it switched to a Japanese or Korean option for a system that the US supplier could not provide for five years.

 

[iambuzzard]

I will leave the relative merits of particular systems to others but I also think there would be a lot of merit in Australia partnering more with Japan (and South Korea) and less with Europe or even USA for many areas of defence technology in future. Two of the most practical reasons are cost and speed. Cost is obvious. Japan and Korea are both efficient and cost effective shipbuilders.

For speed of delivery for weapons and systems, Japan and ROK also have the advantage of potentially bypassing what have become very long lead times with some NATO systems, notably from US suppliers, that need to be ordered years before delivery. The queues for some popular items of US kit have blown out since the Ukraine War. Australia would not do the US economy much harm if it switched to a Japanese or Korean option for a system that the US supplier could not provide for five years.

Even better, if we stand up our own production lines with Japanese and South Korean help it would make us be more self sufficient and will actually take the strain off US production. It's been proven that lead times are way too long and with the current use of munitions if we end up in a widespread hot war everyone except maybe the Chinese will run out of ordinance very quickly (Xi Jinping would starve his own people for weapons)!
We are not on a war footing yet but we MUST start planning for one.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Can I ask your opinion on whether the Japanese would be willing to engage in joint development of certain mutually beneficial required technologies? I could see CEARFAR or Nulka offering a product that JMSDF may want to integrate but also Japanese technologies that would benefit AU. Whilst I imagine we wouldn't want to move to far out of the US ecosystem, would there benefit in reviewing GWEO to find systems we could jointly develop, manufacture, adopt, and stock in qty?

The future is integration together. We will achieve much more success working together to create integrated capable solutions. We have tried flogging CEAFAR stuff on the open market as its own thing, and its already a very full market. Almost every nation seems to have their own sovereign supplier, and bigger countries have more clout particularly as designers and builders of platforms.

Joint development and manufacturing with Japan (or another) is the way forward. The Mogami's are very integrated ships, I think the days of just picking things out of catalogs and jamming together are over. Systems are more complex and interconnected. There are many overlapping systems that need to be engineered, often from inception, to work together.

Japan and the US merged their interceptor programs. Japan and UK are collaborating on 6th generation aircraft. Australia and Japan seem to have a lot of complimentary capabilities and very tight shared interests. Even local production and supply chain in Australia is something they are very interested in. Japan is probably even happy for Australia to be the international sales arm for their tech. Licensed and with profit sharing of course, but there are aspects of international sales they find difficult to deal with. No doubt the Japanese have been looking at the recent European success of the Koreans and their own frustrations.

Both Korea and Japan are interested in production lines outside their own countries. Its no longer a box flogging exercise for them, they need suppliers outside of their countries. They can see what is happening in Ukraine, and can see the obvious problem of trying to do everything internally.

Going with Japan for the ship platform doesn't completely lock out Korea either. Some of those Korean munitions are sure tasty. The artillery stuff is already linked up.

 

[Reptilia]

Bit of work being done at Osborne South

CUF Marine Development Works - McConnell Dowell

The Creative Construction Company. McConnell Dowell has built thousands of iconic, landmark assets, facilities and infrastructure around the world. Sustainable solutions are fundamental when it comes to building our award winning projects.

www.mcconnelldowell.com

-Land backed wharf extension to about 300m
-Dry berth extension to about 150m
-Ship lift platform upgrades
-Dredging

 

[iambuzzard]

With the South Koreans now pushing the Ocean 4300 with 32 cell VLS and their mockup of CEAFAR on the radar mast, what are the main differences between that and the Evolved Mogami?
They seem to be on a par as regards basic capability but I believe the Mogami has better mine warfare equipment and lower crewing.
Is the Korean offering better for compatibilty of equipment and propulsion or not. I have a friend working in Defense who won't say much (as he shouldn't ) but is leaning towards propulsion and time to delivery as the deciding factors.

 

[Stampede]

With the South Koreans now pushing the Ocean 4300 with 32 cell VLS and their mockup of CEAFAR on the radar mast, what are the main differences between that and the Evolved Mogami?
They seem to be on a par as regards basic capability but I believe the Mogami has better mine warfare equipment and lower crewing.
Is the Korean offering better for compatibilty of equipment and propulsion or not. I have a friend working in Defense who won't say much (as he shouldn't ) but is leaning towards propulsion and time to delivery as the deciding factors.

I think if only a few years ago it were suggested we were to build a frigate of destroyer overseas it would be promptly dismissed.
Sea 3000 has a few layers to it, but number one I'd suggest is "time to delivery".

I think in the next few month's the contest will be down to two contenders.

This will start to give some clarity for this project.
Hopefully some clarity for delivery timetables as well.

Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

With the South Koreans now pushing the Ocean 4300 with 32 cell VLS and their mockup of CEAFAR on the radar mast, what are the main differences between that and the Evolved Mogami?
They seem to be on a par as regards basic capability but I believe the Mogami has better mine warfare equipment and lower crewing.
Is the Korean offering better for compatibilty of equipment and propulsion or not. I have a friend working in Defense who won't say much (as he shouldn't ) but is leaning towards propulsion and time to delivery as the deciding factors.

November looks to be when they down select the frigate options to just 2 or 3 from the 5 builders. Most people are saying the Korean and Japanese designs will make the cut. Likely Hanwha over Hyundai and Mitsubishi.
The upgraded Mogami design is complete, ocean 4300 seems to be just a concept.
Add everything up and it should be a tight race.

 

[seaspear]

My wife has a Corolla. With all the dings she's put in it it could do with some armour!

In regards to thickness of armour would the makeup of the steel be more of a determining factor ,I'm sure people here with a better knowledge of the comparing the make up of steel used in ww2 as opposed now could provide more detail, There had previously been discussion on why the R.N used ww2 torpedo's as opposed to its more modern ones to sink the Belgrano than Sea harpoons designed for modern back then lighter armoured ships ,there was some belief that the Harpoons would not be as effective

 

[spoz]

Short answer on the steel - yes. Not going to go into more detail.

Conqueror used a torpedo designed in WW2, the Mark 8 which was and is a very effective anti surface ship weapon, to sink Belgrano rather than a more modern torpedo which, while effective against surface vessels, is more designed to attack other submarines. Harpoon would never be used in such a tactical solution.

 

[seaspear]

What other weapon did the R.N have that would of been effective against the Belgrano?

 

[StevoJH]

What other weapon did the R.N have that would of been effective against the Belgrano?

Tigerfish, aerial bombs, Exocet, Harpoon.

Did the RN have any platforms capable of launching Sea Skua around the Falklands? And did they have enough of them?

In this case either torpedo or aerial bomb probably would have been the two most effective options.

 

[Hoffy]

RAN Virginia Class maintenance provision readiness/planning.

Maintaining Future Virginia-Class Subs in Australia (youtube.com)

 

[seaspear]

Tigerfish, aerial bombs, Exocet, Harpoon.

Did the RN have any platforms capable of launching Sea Skua around the Falklands? And did they have enough of them?

In this case either torpedo or aerial bomb probably would have been the two most effective options.

Can you provide information if the R.N surface vessels in the Falklands were equipped with Exocet and Harpoon ,I ask because some sources stated these were later additions

 

[swerve]

Tigerfish, aerial bombs, Exocet, Harpoon.

Did the RN have any platforms capable of launching Sea Skua around the Falklands? And did they have enough of them?

In this case either torpedo or aerial bomb probably would have been the two most effective options.

The RN had Lynx on ships at the Falklands, & they're reported to have fired eight Sea Skuas. ARA Alferez Sobral was damaged but not sunk. Abandoned whatever it was doing at the time & returned to port. Another ship (not definitely identified) was claimed to be hit. A Sea Skua was wasted on an already disabled & grounded vessel, Río Iguazú - Log into Facebook, & more were used to finish off a damaged cargo ship, Río Carcarañá. Rio Carcarana and Antelope lost in Falkland Area Operations - Falklands War 1982

 

[swerve]

Can you provide information if the R.N surface vessels in the Falklands were equipped with Exocet and Harpoon ,I ask because some sources stated these were later additions

The RN definitely had Exocet. It was standard fit on Leander, Type 21 & Type 22 frigates, & I think County class destroyers. I remember it being discussed at the time, that the RN knew all about the Exocet guidance, because it had more missiles, on more platforms than the Argentinean navy, & had been using it for longer. IIRC the UK was one of the first buyers of Exocet, about the same time as the MN.

It was later replaced by Harpoon. I don't remember when, but it was well after the war. Late 80s? Early 90s?

 

[OldNavy63]

Can you provide information if the R.N surface vessels in the Falklands were equipped with Exocet and Harpoon ,I ask because some sources stated these were later additions

Seven Leander class frigates were converted to 4 x Exocet SSM in place of the fwd 2 x 4.5” gun.

The Type 42 destroyers‘ main armament was the twin Sea Dart launcher, primarily AAW but secondary SSM capability.

Four Exocet SSM replaced the ‘B’ turrets on four of the County class destroyers, most of which deployed with the Task Force.

The Type 22 Batch I Broadsword class frigates, Broadsword and Brilliant carried 4 x Exocet SSM.

AS.12 ASMs fired from Westland Wasp helo disabled the (surfaced), Argentine submarine ARA Santa Fe.

(later edit, the Type 21 frigates also carried Exocet).

Sea Eagle ASM and Harpoon were not introduced until after the Falklands War.

ARA General Belgrano was a light cruiser and had a 5.5” main belt armour.

I understand that HMS Conqueror was fitted with sub-launched Harpoon, however, given the tactical situation, it was decided to use the Mark 8 torpedoes.

 

[Redlands18]

Tigerfish, aerial bombs, Exocet, Harpoon.

Did the RN have any platforms capable of launching Sea Skua around the Falklands? And did they have enough of them?

In this case either torpedo or aerial bomb probably would have been the two most effective options.

If I remember correctly, HMS Conqueror was supposedly carrying both Mk 8 and the then new Mk 24 Tigerfish Torpedoes, but Commander Wreford-Brown decided to go with the Mk 8 due to reliability issues with the Mk 24.

 

[DDG38]

Guys can you take the Falklands/RN weapons discussion to the Royal Navy thread ? Just to keep this RAN discussion on track.