Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

K

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Rocket launched options are still available, but from non-traditional suppliers (Japan, Korea, India).

It's a niche capability that comes with considerable constraints such as losing deck space, VLS cells, but with the advantage of reaction time.

Deck mounted TLLS have limited range, while ASW helicopters, while having longer search range/coverage, is limited by the loiter time and it will take longer to react if the sub is detected outside of it's existing search grid (by the mothership/vessel).

pib.gov.in

Supersonic Missile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDO off the Odisha coast

Supersonic Missile-Assisted Release of Torpedo (SMART) system was successfully flight-tested at arou
pib.gov.in
dbpedia.org

Hong Sang Eo

The Hong Sang Eo (Red Shark) torpedo (Hangul: 홍상어 어뢰), also called the K-ASROC, is a vertically launched anti-submarine missile successively developed and tested by South Korea's University of Science and Technology, the Korea Agency for Defense Development (ADD) and the Republic of Korea Navy...
dbpedia.org
 
7

76mmGuns

Active Member
Saw an interesting link from the Canadian Navy thread which has some input on why Korea's bid was dropped in Australia's frigate tender.

www.koreatimes.co.kr

HD Hyundai-Hanwha rapprochement boosts prospects for Canada sub bid

Expectations are rising that the recent reconciliation between HD Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) and Hanwha Ocean could lead the Royal Canadian Navy to place an order with one of them to build 12 submarines, worth 60 billion Canadian dollars ($43 billion), to replace its aging fleet.
www.koreatimes.co.kr www.koreatimes.co.kr

Article is about how the 2 korean companies are uniting for the Canadian 12 submarines bid, but has an interesting (imho) bit of news about the Aussie's frigate program bids.

"When the Australian Navy shortlisted Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems last month for the 11 billion Australian dollar ($7.25 billion) project to build a new fleet of general-purpose frigates, industry experts pointed out that the legal battle between the Korean shipbuilders led them to expose their weaknesses, despite their ability to supply high-performance warships at lower prices.

“Both Japan and Germany were able to make all-out efforts for the project, responding to Australia’s request to develop its western industrial facilities,” said Moon Keun-sik, a professor of Hanyang University Graduate School of Public Policy who was formerly a Republic of Korea Navy submarine commander.

The DAPA minister also said that defense companies sometimes need to cooperate with each other, when their competition goes against the national interests.

“The government will contemplate how to help in winning the Canadian submarine project,” he said."
 
D

devo99

Well-Known Member
koxinga said:
Rocket launched options are still available, but from non-traditional suppliers (Japan, Korea, India).

It's a niche capability that comes with considerable constraints such as losing deck space, VLS cells, but with the advantage of reaction time.

Deck mounted TLLS have limited range, while ASW helicopters, while having longer search range/coverage, is limited by the loiter time and it will take longer to react if the sub is detected outside of it's existing search grid (by the mothership/vessel).

pib.gov.in

Supersonic Missile-Assisted Release of Torpedo system successfully flight-tested by DRDO off the Odisha coast

Supersonic Missile-Assisted Release of Torpedo (SMART) system was successfully flight-tested at arou
pib.gov.in
dbpedia.org

Hong Sang Eo

The Hong Sang Eo (Red Shark) torpedo (Hangul: 홍상어 어뢰), also called the K-ASROC, is a vertically launched anti-submarine missile successively developed and tested by South Korea's University of Science and Technology, the Korea Agency for Defense Development (ADD) and the Republic of Korea Navy...
dbpedia.org
Click to expand...
Getting Type 07 as part of a deal with the Mogamis would be a cool proposition. Otherwise the RN is currently looking for a similar capability and the USN is probably looking to replace VL-ASROC in the fairly near future.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
devo99 said:
Getting Type 07 as part of a deal with the Mogamis would be a cool proposition. Otherwise the RN is currently looking for a similar capability and the USN is probably looking to replace VL-ASROC in the fairly near future.
Click to expand...
I personally rather doubt that the USN is going to be replacing the RUM-139C VL-ASROC any time soon. That version of VL-ASROC reached IOC in 2010, ~six years after production fitted with the Mk 54 LWT began. AFAIK the USN does not have a programme currently running to develop a new LWT to replace the Mk 54, so one of the main reasons to develop a new system does not exist yet. Of course the USN might be looking to develop a new carrier missile to be able to deliver a LWT further away from the launching ship, but Mk 41 VLS cells would still have size constraints.

IIRC VL-ASROC can fit into Tactical length Mk 41 VLS cells, so theoretically a new VL LWT missile could be developed which would only fit into the larger strike length VLS cells, but I am not sure that the extra range which might be possible would justify both the costs to develop as well as occupying a strike length VLS cell which might be other loaded with a LACM or larger SAM.
 
D

devo99

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
I personally rather doubt that the USN is going to be replacing the RUM-139C VL-ASROC any time soon. That version of VL-ASROC reached IOC in 2010, ~six years after production fitted with the Mk 54 LWT began. AFAIK the USN does not have a programme currently running to develop a new LWT to replace the Mk 54, so one of the main reasons to develop a new system does not exist yet. Of course the USN might be looking to develop a new carrier missile to be able to deliver a LWT further away from the launching ship, but Mk 41 VLS cells would still have size constraints.

IIRC VL-ASROC can fit into Tactical length Mk 41 VLS cells, so theoretically a new VL LWT missile could be developed which would only fit into the larger strike length VLS cells, but I am not sure that the extra range which might be possible would justify both the costs to develop as well as occupying a strike length VLS cell which might be other loaded with a LACM or larger SAM.
Click to expand...
There's no indication that the USN is looking to replace Mk 54 as the LWT but the RUM-139C as a missile has been outclassed by the Type 07 for approaching 20 years now, which notably also manages to fit into a tactical length Mk41 cell. And the point about the RN recently expressing interest in re-acquiring an ASROC capability still stand. I would think it to be a missed opportunity if the RAN didn't either acquire Type 07 alongside the GPF program or pursue a new system with the US and UK under AUKUS Pillar 2
 
D

downunderblue

Member
If the Mogami is selected then the Type 7 may be an option for the RAN but talk about pillar 2?

ASW must be changing and. I'd suggest the pillar 2 developments would involve more sensor integration, AI and USV/UAV use (just at a guess). Whilst having a long range surface standoff weapon may be of some benefit, I 'assume' greater benefit would be had elsewhere (better 'bang' for your buck' so to speak).

I'd assume Pillar 2 in this context would be focused on getting the war fighters and defense scientists/subcontractors together looking at new ways to collaborate, develop and quickly implement technology advancements and enhanced tactics to control if not dominate this battlespace. Old school thinking doesn't lose its value but new ideas can be revolutionary in effect therefore where the gain can be made.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
devo99 said:
There's no indication that the USN is looking to replace Mk 54 as the LWT but the RUM-139C as a missile has been outclassed by the Type 07 for approaching 20 years now, which notably also manages to fit into a tactical length Mk41 cell. And the point about the RN recently expressing interest in re-acquiring an ASROC capability still stand. I would think it to be a missed opportunity if the RAN didn't either acquire Type 07 alongside the GPF program or pursue a new system with the US and UK under AUKUS Pillar 2
Click to expand...
And yet the RUM-139C only reached IOC in the USN some 14 years ago, or some six years after having been 'outclassed' by the Type 07...

FOC for the USN using the RUM-139C would have come some time after the 2010 IOC date.

As mentioned though, how much of an improvement over what the RUM-139C can be had, and at what cost? From what I have been able to find on the Type 07 VL ASW rocket, it is nearly 2m longer than a RUM-139C and has roughly twice the displacement, whilst having ~8km greater range or reach than the RUM-139C. I am not certain that the USN sees there being much value in having a new LWT carrier-missile developed so that a ship can go from being able to directly fire at subs ~22 km away to 30 km+ away.
 
S

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
This article is about using gun projectiles against drones and lower speed cruise missiles in Red Sea combat versus Houthis. It seems pretty relevant to how Australia’s new GPF and Hunters should be armed. I can’t see the down side in having all relevant RAN ships similarly armed.
www.twz.com

USS Carney's Red Sea Operations Highlight 5-inch Deck Gun's Anti-Air Capability

USS Carney executed a whopping 51 engagements of Houthi drones and missiles during its deployment to the Red Sea.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Scott Elaurant said:
This article is about using gun projectiles against drones and lower speed cruise missiles in Red Sea combat versus Houthis. It seems pretty relevant to how Australia’s new GPF and Hunters should be armed. I can’t see the down side in having all relevant RAN ships similarly armed.
www.twz.com

USS Carney's Red Sea Operations Highlight 5-inch Deck Gun's Anti-Air Capability

USS Carney executed a whopping 51 engagements of Houthi drones and missiles during its deployment to the Red Sea.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
Course corrected rounds have been a thing for a while and are a logical way forward for the RAN.

DART/Stales 76mm is the Italian navies CWIS solution, there are 57mm options and I believe 40mm under development.
 
D

devo99

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
I am not certain that the USN sees there being much value in having a new LWT carrier-missile developed so that a ship can go from being able to directly fire at subs ~22 km away to 30 km+ away.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not but that still leaves us with the opportunity to work with either the British or buy Type 07 from the Japanese.
 
icelord

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
With regards to Hunter mission bay.

I've recently come off HCF project so I'll keep it short and sweet without identify myself to much.

We are not giving any more money then is necessary to BAE to change the design any further then it has already cost us!

Every single adjustment to the type 26 design costs Commonwealth money. I mean EVERY SINGLE ADJUSTMENT...the vessels size increase has not been cheap.

HCF batch 1 is signed, sealed and (praying) being delivered. Majors mods to batch 2 will costs us and for what purpose other then increasing risk. Projects already ridiculously expensive for the stage its at, so i don't see the point in adding more cost and risk when 1sts ships not even in the water. If we were going towards batch 3, no worries lets consider the VLS design over flexi mission bay, but since we are not, lets stop adding "good ideas"
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
icelord said:
With regards to Hunter mission bay.

I've recently come off HCF project so I'll keep it short and sweet without identify myself to much.

We are not giving any more money then is necessary to BAE to change the design any further then it has already cost us!

Every single adjustment to the type 26 design costs Commonwealth money. I mean EVERY SINGLE ADJUSTMENT...the vessels size increase has not been cheap.

HCF batch 1 is signed, sealed and (praying) being delivered. Majors mods to batch 2 will costs us and for what purpose other then increasing risk. Projects already ridiculously expensive for the stage its at, so i don't see the point in adding more cost and risk when 1sts ships not even in the water. If we were going towards batch 3, no worries lets consider the VLS design over flexi mission bay, but since we are not, lets stop adding "good ideas"
Click to expand...
I’m sure it will offer much as it is.

Hoping for no delays and we see the six ships role out in good time

Cheers S
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
icelord said:
With regards to Hunter mission bay.

I've recently come off HCF project so I'll keep it short and sweet without identify myself to much.

We are not giving any more money then is necessary to BAE to change the design any further then it has already cost us!

Every single adjustment to the type 26 design costs Commonwealth money. I mean EVERY SINGLE ADJUSTMENT...the vessels size increase has not been cheap.

HCF batch 1 is signed, sealed and (praying) being delivered. Majors mods to batch 2 will costs us and for what purpose other then increasing risk. Projects already ridiculously expensive for the stage its at, so i don't see the point in adding more cost and risk when 1sts ships not even in the water. If we were going towards batch 3, no worries lets consider the VLS design over flexi mission bay, but since we are not, lets stop adding "good ideas"
Click to expand...
I agree.

Variations are ultra expensive. Most procurement and payment system make most of the money out of variations in construction. It may be cheaper to modify them after construction than put them into the main construction contract, and that has happened many times before (hobart class and some of their modifications for example). Because modifications cause all sorts of cost over-runs and blowouts, because they impact tight schedules, the tighter the schedule the more the blow out. So something like Hunter, its a really bad idea to put in modifications NOW. Asking toyota to create a special one off modification to your Toyota landcruiser as its going down the production line, holding up every other landcruiser they are building, is where a $5 modification costs $500 million to perform. It would be much cheaper to assess that kind of modification after delivery, even then, if it doesn't add useful capability at the time, don't bother. Even worse, modifications can blow out timelines by years. Particularly on large busy projects.

Look at the Constellation class. Lets make a cheap, low risk boat by changing everything!

With something like the French subs, we were paying tens of millions, for specing different power points or light fittings in the design. Even just putting in different taps in the sink. So you have to think very carefully what you are modifying. So just in the design stage it can be expensive particularly if you have a contract that is structured that way, which our risk adverse procurement setup tends to enforce.

Just build the dam things. Once they are built, and operational, we can talk about capability growth and value for money. Right now we need ships in the water, not delaying a project another 5-10 years to add marginal capabilities.

Extra VLS is marginal IMO. It doesn't add reach, or capabilities, just a larger magazine, and all magazines would be nicer larger. TBH I will be surprised if we can fill the current ones we already have and man and crew the ships.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
I agree.

Variations are ultra expensive. Most procurement and payment system make most of the money out of variations in construction. It may be cheaper to modify them after construction than put them into the main construction contract, and that has happened many times before (hobart class and some of their modifications for example). Because modifications cause all sorts of cost over-runs and blowouts, because they impact tight schedules, the tighter the schedule the more the blow out. So something like Hunter, its a really bad idea to put in modifications NOW. Asking toyota to create a special one off modification to your Toyota landcruiser as its going down the production line, holding up every other landcruiser they are building, is where a $5 modification costs $500 million to perform. It would be much cheaper to assess that kind of modification after delivery, even then, if it doesn't add useful capability at the time, don't bother. Even worse, modifications can blow out timelines by years. Particularly on large busy projects.

Look at the Constellation class. Lets make a cheap, low risk boat by changing everything!

With something like the French subs, we were paying tens of millions, for specing different power points or light fittings in the design. Even just putting in different taps in the sink. So you have to think very carefully what you are modifying. So just in the design stage it can be expensive particularly if you have a contract that is structured that way, which our risk adverse procurement setup tends to enforce.

Just build the dam things. Once they are built, and operational, we can talk about capability growth and value for money. Right now we need ships in the water, not delaying a project another 5-10 years to add marginal capabilities.

Extra VLS is marginal IMO. It doesn't add reach, or capabilities, just a larger magazine, and all magazines would be nicer larger. TBH I will be surprised if we can fill the current ones we already have and man and crew the ships.
Click to expand...
It looks like the Evolved Mogami is the favourite. It ticks all the boxes with 32 Strike Lengthand will be in production very shortly. Hardly a paper design.
 
K

K.I.

Member
icelord said:
With regards to Hunter mission bay.

I've recently come off HCF project so I'll keep it short and sweet without identify myself to much.

We are not giving any more money then is necessary to BAE to change the design any further then it has already cost us!

Every single adjustment to the type 26 design costs Commonwealth money. I mean EVERY SINGLE ADJUSTMENT...the vessels size increase has not been cheap.

HCF batch 1 is signed, sealed and (praying) being delivered. Majors mods to batch 2 will costs us and for what purpose other then increasing risk. Projects already ridiculously expensive for the stage its at, so i don't see the point in adding more cost and risk when 1sts ships not even in the water. If we were going towards batch 3, no worries lets consider the VLS design over flexi mission bay, but since we are not, lets stop adding "good ideas"
Click to expand...
Yep, we're better off with the 6 same Aegis ASW frigates and then look at a AAW destroyer type. The anticipated power requirements for a large AAW platform with future power hungry radar / EW systems dictate a twin GT system will be the minimum if you want to maintain performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top