Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[downunderblue]

The bipartisan decision has been made to not go down the nuclear weapon path. That's another can of worms. However, a long range conventional warhead cruise missile is a better idea. An echidna with very long spikes.

I had a quick scan but isn't SLCM-N just a new more survival TLAM with a revised warhead?

It's clear we will need something and will possess a lot of flexiability on what weapons (+++) we put on our SSN's (just ignoring the Hobart class for now).

From reading, the VLS fittout for the subs will be:

• 2x 87-inch Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) (which coincidentally were first contracted to BAE) on the 2x RAN Virginia-class Block IV SSN's
• 4x VPTs on the single RAN Virginia-class Block V SSN totalling either 40-48 missiles (there is some variance here in sources)
• a 'common vertical launch system' on the RAN SSN AUKUS, likely to involve 2x VPT's (tbc) ???

There seems to be some question how many missiles the VPT can carry and of what type. Some say 6, some 7, some even 10 Tomahawk sized missiles but there are also references to hypersonic packages.

There isn't much material on the VPT, but 87 inches is big and offers many options. Have a look at the below graphic from the US Naval Submarine League (source). It references the Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile as well as 'crusie missiles' UUV's etc. Maybe they could even quad pack a SAM???

Eitherway, I guess I am saying that there are many forms of "echidnas with very long spikes" you could potentially use, many of which could utilise differing warhead packages depending on the mission allocated.

 

[JBRobbo]

I had a quick scan but isn't SLCM-N just a new more survival TLAM with a revised warhead?

It's clear we will need something and will possess a lot of flexiability on what weapons (+++) we put on our SSN's (just ignoring the Hobart class for now).

From reading, the VLS fittout for the subs will be:

• 2x 87-inch Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) (which coincidentally were first contracted to BAE) on the 2x RAN Virginia-class Block IV SSN's
• 4x VPTs on the single RAN Virginia-class Block V SSN totalling either 40-48 missiles (there is some variance here in sources)
• a 'common vertical launch system' on the RAN SSN AUKUS, likely to involve 2x VPT's (tbc) ???

There seems to be some question how many missiles the VPT can carry and of what type. Some say 6, some 7, some even 10 Tomahawk sized missiles but there are also references to hypersonic packages.

There isn't much material on the VPT, but 87 inches is big and offers many options. Have a look at the below graphic from the US Naval Submarine League (source). It references the Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile as well as 'crusie missiles' UUV's etc. Maybe they could even quad pack a SAM???

Eitherway, I guess I am saying that there are many forms of "echidnas with very long spikes" you could potentially use, many of which could utilise differing warhead packages depending on the

 

[JBRobbo]

We're not getting any Virginia BlockV, its two second-hand Block-4s + a new-build Block6/7 if i remember. Pretty sure we specifically requested that they not be fitted with the additional Virginia Payload Module (VPM) tubes of the Block5. I presume its because it would've been harder to reassure our regional neighbors that the acquisition of nuclear submarines was defensive in nature when a Block5 can dump 40 TLAM or 12x TLAM and 12x 'Dark Eagle' LRHW on them with near impunity.

 

[downunderblue]

We're not getting any Virginia BlockV, its two second-hand Block-4s + a new-build Block6/7 if i remember. Pretty sure we specifically requested that they not be fitted with the additional Virginia Payload Module (VPM) tubes of the Block5. I presume its because it would've been harder to reassure our regional neighbors that the acquisition of nuclear submarines was defensive in nature when a Block5 can dump 40 TLAM or 12x TLAM and 12x 'Dark Eagle' LRHW on them with near impunity.

I stand corrected, so it'll be two Block V's and a Block VII (new build) instead of the Block V.

I've realised my above calcs on are confused with the 87-inch Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) most likely being utilised. The below is a USNI-sourced diagram of the 2x VPT on the Block III USS Colarado. 'I assume' we'll end up with two VPT's per boat. It's still a lot of hoopla, likely at 6 missiles or similar per VPT. The only possible contradiction to this is SSN-Aukus and whether the 'common vertical launch system' consists of two VPT's or something different.

Am getting tired now so going to stop looking. Correct me if incorrect and will reassess tmrw.

 

[Reptilia]

We don’t actually need a new block VII.
A new block VII guarantees Uncle Sam will have access to an Indian Ocean maintenance hub into the 2070s.
Would prefer another used block IV, retiring all 3 in the 2050s and just having 1 class(SSN AUKUS).

 

[ADMk2]

We don’t actually need a new block VII.
A new block VII guarantees Uncle Sam will have access to an Indian Ocean maintenance hub into the 2070s.
Would prefer another used block IV, retiring all 3 in the 2050s and just having 1 class(SSN AUKUS).

Just 2 submarines of any kind is not going to provide an operational submarine at all times considering the 3:1 rule. May be manageable with a rotation submarine from either the US or UK, but doesn't do much for our national sovereignty... I am not sure there is much point in spending so much, to not even have an operational submarine at all times...

Is there a particular problem with having a US Maintenance hub? Surely that helps ensure US interest and commitment to sustaining the effort, no? Pecuniary interest is one thing, actual "skin in the game" is something else. Even with AUKUS submarines assuming everything goes to plan perfectly (unlikely) we will still require substantial US commitment to the program due to US combat and weapon systems being included in the design...

 

[Reptilia]

Just 2 submarines of any kind is not going to provide an operational submarine at all times considering the 3:1 rule. May be manageable with a rotation submarine from either the US or UK, but doesn't do much for our national sovereignty... I am not sure there is much point in spending so much, to not even have an operational submarine at all times...

Is there a particular problem with having a US Maintenance hub? Surely that helps ensure US interest and commitment to sustaining the effort, no? Pecuniary interest is one thing, actual "skin in the game" is something else. Even with AUKUS submarines assuming everything goes to plan perfectly (unlikely) we will still require substantial US commitment to the program due to US combat and weapon systems being included in the design...

‘Would prefer another used block IV, retiring all 3 in the 2050s and just having 1 class(SSN AUKUS).’

 

[Going Boeing]

I stand corrected, so it'll be two Block V's and a Block VII (new build) instead of the Block V.

I've realised my above calcs on are confused with the 87-inch Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) most likely being utilised. The below is a USNI-sourced diagram of the 2x VPT on the Block III USS Colarado. 'I assume' we'll end up with two VPT's per boat. It's still a lot of hoopla, likely at 6 missiles or similar per VPT. The only possible contradiction to this is SSN-Aukus and whether the 'common vertical launch system' consists of two VPT's or something different.

Am getting tired now so going to stop looking. Correct me if incorrect and will reassess tmrw.

View attachment 52648

From what I have been able to find from a number of sources, the two VPT’s in the bow section can fit 6 tomahawks each whereas the four VPT’s in the Virginia Payload Module on the Block V’s can fit 7 each (with the additional one in the centre position). The tubes are the same 87” diameter but the ones in the VPM are longer as shown with the elevated upper deck. I’m not privy to the internal workings but, I suspect that the extra VPT length allows part of the launching mechanism to be moved to the base area thus freeing up the centre area for an extra missile.

 

[downunderblue]

From what I have been able to find from a number of sources, the two VPT’s in the bow section can fit 6 tomahawks each whereas the four VPT’s in the Virginia Payload Module on the Block V’s can fit 7 each (with the additional one in the centre position). The tubes are the same 87” diameter but the ones in the VPM are longer as shown with the elevated upper deck. I’m not privy to the internal workings but, I suspect that the extra VPT length allows part of the launching mechanism to be moved to the base area thus freeing up the centre area for an extra missile.

Yes. Trying to find open source material on a subset of the silent service is less easy than analysing say a J-50 or J-35 which are flying in earshot of the public and their smartphones on of Mao Zedong's birthday ...

The VPM (inclusive of the VPT's) for the Virginia Block V with the looks imo impressive for its ability to carry a wide variety of equipment, sensors, USV, weapons etc, whereas the VPT's on the Block III/VI seem to just reference land attack missiles. I hope the VPT's are universal here (regardless of 6 or 7) so that the RAN Virginia's and the SSN-AUKUS (also assuming they use the 87 inch VPT's) can have the same flexibility in load.

It opens up a load of possibilities and again reinforces how a big nuclear boat can bring more to the plate than just transit speed and endurance.

 

[Reptilia]

Japans new OPV build program just beginning, 2 to be launched this coming November, 2 more in March 2026. All 4 commissioned March 2027. Crazy speed.
On that timeline all 12 commissioned by 2029. (Out of 1 yard)

Larger, more capable than an Arafura with less crew required and 1/5 the price.

Japan starts production of a new fleet of OPV - Naval News

The new OPV will be built at a very high pace: The first and second vessels are scheduled to be launched in November this year.

www.navalnews.com

 

[iambuzzard]

Japans new OPV build program just beginning, 2 to be launched this coming November, 2 more in March 2026. All 4 commissioned March 2027. Crazy speed.
On that timeline all 12 commissioned by 2029. (Out of 1 yard)

Larger, more capable than an Arafura with less crew required and 1/5 the price.

Japan starts production of a new fleet of OPV - Naval News

The new OPV will be built at a very high pace: The first and second vessels are scheduled to be launched in November this year.

www.navalnews.com

They like the number 12. 12 of these, 12 Mogami, 12 Evolved Mogami.

 

[Stampede]

They like the number 12. 12 of these, 12 Mogami, 12 Evolved Mogami.

The RAN likes twelve as well

12 Arafura
12 Attack Class
A fleet of around twelve frigates and destroyers

Cheers S.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Not sure what impact this will have on Australia's Virginia buy but does not make things easier.
Also not sure why DOGE is involved?

President Trump Asked DOGE to Reinstate ITAR on AUKUS Submarine, A Huge Blow to Australia

U.S. controls on sensitive defence exports, relaxed for AUKUS partner Australia last year, still apply to submarines, creating hurdles to defence industry collaboration on U.S. Virginia-class sub p…

www.globaldefensecorp.com

 

[iambuzzard]

Not sure what impact this will have on Australia's Virginia buy but does not make things easier.
Also not sure why DOGE is involved?

President Trump Asked DOGE to Reinstate ITAR on AUKUS Submarine, A Huge Blow to Australia

U.S. controls on sensitive defence exports, relaxed for AUKUS partner Australia last year, still apply to submarines, creating hurdles to defence industry collaboration on U.S. Virginia-class sub p…

www.globaldefensecorp.com

View attachment 52660

This is a nightmare!

 

[Stampede]

This is a nightmare!

It’s all about the deal!

S

 

[Todjaeger]

This is a nightmare!

AND

It’s all about the deal!

S

TBH after I read the actual article, the headline does not really match with the text that follows, which makes me suspect that the writer is trying to stir to the pot.

Not saying that there are no issues now, or potential issues which might arise later, but it really seems more like the headline was written the way it was in order to provoke a reaction from people, rather than have them continue reading.

Yes, "DOGE" has apparently been tasked with looking at USN procurement as well as shipbuilding and American components. Yes, there could be ITAR issues because submarine tech is some of the most sensitive, this is not something new or different even with AUKUS.

Reading further down, the article talks about potential ITAR problems Australian firms might encounter, trying to get information so that they can bid on component production for US subs.

 

[swerve]

TBH after I read the actual article, the headline does not really match with the text that follows, which makes me suspect that the writer is trying to stir to the pot.
...

That seems to be a feature of the site, rather than an individual writer.

 

[Todjaeger]

That seems to be a feature of the site, rather than an individual writer.

Perhaps, or perhaps AI was used to write part of the article. It (AI) has been used to write things previously and ended up just making things up in some cases, ChatGPT specifically as reported here.

Whatever the reason, it does make the site content rather questionable IMO.