Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Reptilia]

Wonder will they have an anti-surface ship capability?
Could they fire Mk-54 or MU-90 torpedos against surface vessels?

I’d say Copperhead torpedoes.

Copperhead

Family of High-Speed Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

www.anduril.com

 

[Bob53]

Full rate production for both Ghost Shark and Ghost Bat is ‘dozens’ per year in the period 2025-2030, years away from 100s coming off the production line, likely waiting for export orders.

Dozens is about 12 per year more of anything else we build.

 

[JBRobbo]

Has the potential to be one of the most cost effective and timely improvements for the Navy in it’s history

 

[AndyinOz]

I’d say Copperhead torpedoes.

Copperhead

Family of High-Speed Autonomous Underwater Vehicles

www.anduril.com

Good bet, Anduril's website states that the XL-AUV is a potential launch platform for the Copperhead 100 and 500. So I imagine that would be one possible payload besides having it filled to the gills with sensors for ISR packages.

 

[OldTex]

Wonder will they have an anti-surface ship capability?
Could they fire Mk-54 or MU-90 torpedos against surface vessels?

Both the Mk54 and MU-90 Lightweight torpedoes are designed, according to the information available publicly, for ship and aircraft launch mostly against submarines. For a submarine torpedoes are usually a heavyweight design, such as Mk48ADCAP or Spearfish, which have a significant range and speed. A LWT from a submarine would be the equivalent of firing at point blank range.
Andruil would be happy to sell their Copperhead UUV as an explosive payload delivery system for the Ghost Shark XLUUV, but why reinvent what already exists and is supported in the ADF inventory.
The Ghost Shark may well take on an offensive capability in the future, but at this early stage it would be more a case of developing suitable CONOPS and providing additional ISR. A potential area of utilisation could be surveillance of undersea infrastructure.
It may also be that Arafura class vessels might become tenders or motherships for groups of deployed Ghost Sharks.

 

[Volkodav]

Well it’s not really BS. It’s a fact that making changes has lead to dramatically higher costs…in Australia’s cost if we take out the infrastructure costs and associated program costs…close to double the cost per hull.

The cost of a Modified Military Off The Shelf option is pretty much always the same as a clean sheet design. The exception to this is modular designs, but they are compromised in a number of ways that effect cost and capability.

The way to mitigate this is to have a capable, adaptable, sovereign design and build capability, supporting a continuous build program. This is however also a compromise as it only works if you build small batches of continually evolving designs, which is less efficient than building large batches of a fixed design.

Japan has chosen the continuous build of small evolving batches, that permit them to rapidly design and build new designs and larger batches when the strategic situation changes.

Australia continually attempts to do this but fails because of a lack of commitment and consistency.

 

[seaspear]

I understand this vessel to capable of sea mine laying certainly preferable than using manned delivery options

 

[Reptilia]

I understand this vessel to capable of sea mine laying certainly preferable than using manned delivery options

Can deploy
Seabed Sentry, AUVs, Torpedoes, Mines and apparently it can strike Vertical(I’m guessing one of the pods in the future is small VLS system for missiles or torps, drones, buoys+beacons etc)