Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

If a manned diesel electric submarine, using proven technology will struggle to deliver the required capability in the medium term you can be sure an unmanned conventional platform, using cutting edge technology, will struggle even more.

By all means develop and deploy the technology, grow and evolve it, but don't rely on it working perfectly and arriving when scheduled to replace an existing capability.

 

[seaspear]

I imagine this is very much an “as well as” rather than an “instead of” capability though?

I don't believe the technology exists for this to be instead of manned submarines ,but I believe they can be designed as a "force multiplier" allowing the parent submarine or other platform to avoid risk of detection ,certainly the U.S.Ns Orca has some capabilities that would be of use to the R.A.N
US Navy Introduces First Orca Drone Submarine (thedefensepost.com)

 

[alexsa]

I'm not sure if this has been posted, but interesting to see TKMS appears to be interested.

Germans circle navy’s corvette warship plan

Their MEKO A-100 Light Frigate is quite an impressive platform - It'd be my pick from their relevant offerings.

Corvettes & Light Frigates

None of these options have a range beyond 4500nm at 14 knots. I will keep hammering this point as range is essential for fleet units intended to go in harms way given the geography of our locaion. There is a reason the ANZAC range is 6000nm at 18 knots. The ship can deploy faster and further taking some of the burden off the AOR's in respect of being topped up frequently.

4 knots is slower than the speed of advance of our fleet units, a range of 4500 nm means the AOR will need to attend the vessel more often meaning you either split your task force of operate the group at 14knots. Far from ideal in my view.

Again we need to stop looking a shiny kit and work out what is needed. As I have said before the minimum capability of a second tier unit would have to be equivalent to the upgraded ANZAC. Packing the fuel, systems such a 9LV/CEAFar and weapons is going to be very very challenging on anything under 3000 tonnes unless you compromise on something. If you compromise ..... is it worth it.

 

[alexsa]

With regards to the R.A.N submarine fleet ,these articles suggests other options that are being considered and their benefits certainly cheaper.
Britain awards contract for large crewless submarine (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
The Navy Just Ordered the 'Orca,' an Extra-Large Unmanned Submarine by Boeing (popularmechanics.com)
This article suggests that the unmanned craft being considered for the R.A.N will be possibly used as bridging the gap between the Collins class and nuclear submarines with ability in intelligence gathering ,the R.Ns Cetus drone will be capable of operating at greater depths than the regular fleet
Australian Unmanned Submarines Are On The Way (overtdefense.com)

Be careful how you interpret 'bridging the gap'. These units may not be armed and may be survellance assets. Potentially a very useful tool for the current and future submarine force but it is not replacing anything at this point in time as far as I am aware.

 

[ddxx]

None of these options have a range beyond 4500nm at 14 knots. I will keep hammering this point as range is essential for fleet units intended to go in harms way given the geography of our locaion. There is a reason the ANZAC range is 6000nm at 18 knots. The ship can deploy faster and further taking some of the burden off the AOR's in respect of being topped up frequently.

4 knots is slower than the speed of advance of our fleet units, a range of 4500 nm means the AOR will need to attend the vessel more often meaning you either split your task force of operate the group at 14knots. Far from ideal in my view.

Again we need to stop looking a shiny kit and work out what is needed. As I have said before the minimum capability of a second tier unit would have to be equivalent to the upgraded ANZAC. Packing the fuel, systems such a 9LV/CEAFar and weapons is going to be very very challenging on anything under 3000 tonnes unless you compromise on something. If you compromise ..... is it worth it.

You're absolutely right. Arguably, any such a platform should be able to operate independently in conducting long range presence missions.

That's one of the key reasons I always come back to the AH140, out of the options in the market for a mid-tier combatant, it seems to tick the most boxes. It's capable of up to 9,000nm at 18 knots (load and configuration dependent) - Certainly not going to be in need of an AOR very often!

 

[Todjaeger]

You're absolutely right. Arguably, any such a platform should be able to operate independently in conducting long range presence missions.

That's one of the key reasons I always come back to the AH140, out of the options in the market for a mid-tier combatant, it seems to tick the most boxes. It's capable of up to 9,000nm at 18 knots (load and configuration dependent) - Certainly not going to be in need of an AOR very often!

For actual RAN combatants, yes they need to have some ability to operate independently. However, they also need to be viable vessels as part of a TF. as well. This means that not only do the sensors, comms and weapons fitout need to contribute and be complementary to the overall fitout for the TF, the combatant's range and speed also need to 'fit' in with the rest of the vessels.

As @alexsa mentioned, a reduced speed for a transit range, or a reduced transit range would either place additional burdens on RAS and any AOR's as part of the TF, or force the entire TF to reduce transit speed, or perhaps both. Including vessels that are not high value assets, which would force a reduction in transit speed for a TF would IMO be a very foolish thing to do, as reducing transit speed means greater time to get on station, as well as potentially providing more opportunities for a TF to be detected, tracked and targeted by a variety of hostile assets.

On a somewhat related note, consideration also needs be be given towards what capability outputs the RAN wants, needs, and can realistically afford. The reason why the type of vessel known as an OPV for Offshore Patrol Vessel was developed, was because a number of nations realized they had a need for ocean-going vessels for patrol and constabulary duties particularly for within EEZ and fisheries areas. At the same time, ops in such areas would not normally need the comprehensive sensor and combat suites which warships are normally fitted with and which also drastically drive up the price of a naval vessel.

Even though the per vessel price of the Arafura-class OPV does seem to be a tad on the high side for an OPV, being something like AUD$300 mil. per vessel IIRC vs. ~NZD$110 mil. per Project Protector OPV for the RNZN back in 2010, a cost of AUD$300 mil. is still only about half of what a FSG like a K130-class corvette would cost.

My point being that it makes little sense to expend significant amounts of the limited coin available to acquire combatants to fulfill patrol and presence needs, but not also able to really serve as main fleet units. A main fleet unit like a destroyer or frigate could be tasked as needed (provided one or more is available, of course...) to cover patrol needs, particularly if there is potential for needing a bit more of the pointy end of things during a patrol. Clashing with "coastguard" vessels of certain nations escorting their fishing fleets comes to mind as a possible scenario where this might happen. However, IMO it would make little sense to provide all patrolling vessels with the ability to handle such a high end encounter on their own, simply due to the likely significant increase in the costs per vessel and overall project, for such a niche scenario.

 

[ngatimozart]

When I was casting around for a hull for a theoretical corvette, I looked at the MEKO 100 hull and straight away decided that it was to small for Australia or NZ requirements. I actually looked at the MEKO 200 hull and that does have the hull capacity required. Note that I am using the word hull which I am defining as the basic hull plus machinery. Nothing else. The fitout of weapons, sensors, accommodation etc., can be fitted into it without having to rearrange an existing design. You aren't buying into someone else's design and maritime philosophy. You even get to stipulate the machinery so no requirement for a gas turbine. That gives you options. You can also design in mission bays and modular capabilities.

For gawds sake people go and do some basic research on what the role of corvettes, patrol boats, OPV, FFG, DDG, are and have a look at a map of what the Australian Maritime Areas of Interest are. Have a good look at the map because it's not a shambling cruise across Bondi Beach or across the Brisbane River in a rubbery ducky.

Not aimed at anyone in particular. The Moderators and DEFPROs are becoming really annoyed with people continuingly regurgitating the same arguments about the corvettes. The Moderators will start cracking down on individuals if the quality of the posts fails to increase.

There is a pre-existing ban on discussion about up arming the Arafura Class OPV and the Moderators will start enforcing it.

 

[Jason_DBF]

The main purposes of the Arafura class OPV is border protection, patrols and fisheries protection they are ment to free up the major warships from these roles. No need to be armed with missiles and large guns.

 

[Massive]

For what it’s worth, my thinking is as follows:

I am not sure a single task force is sufficient. I am not sure two subs are sufficient. If we are at war, and we want to keep our SLOCs open, and disrupt those of the Chinese I think we need to, at any given time, have a persistent, credible naval presence in the following areas:

Thanks for taking the time to lay this out Morgo.

My sense is more that there would be a required number of escort groups to escort task forces or convoys - a role for MFUs.

Assuming that an escort group comprises 4 MFU (1AWD, 3 FFG or 2AWD, 2 FFG) + an AOR + say 4 helicopters, and a need for 4 escort groups (1 on task, 1 transiting, 1 replenishing & 1 refitting), then 16 MFU and 4 AOR would be required.

There is then a question of a need for a second tier of combatants for independent tasking. It would be the second tier that would likely provide any persistent presence - with the ability to protect themselves as opposed to serving as an escort.

For me this gets the RAN to:

16 MFU in 4 escort groups
6-8 GP frigates

2 AOR
2 JSS

The rest of the fleet would be:

2 LHD
12 Mine warfare/patrol - 4 fitted for mine warfare, 8 for patrol
In-production Arafura

Regards,

Massive

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for taking the time to lay this out Morgo.

My sense is more that there would be a required number of escort groups to escort task forces or convoys - a role for MFUs.

Assuming that an escort group comprises 4 MFU (1AWD, 3 FFG or 2AWD, 2 FFG) + an AOR + say 4 helicopters, and a need for 4 escort groups (1 on task, 1 transiting, 1 replenishing & 1 refitting), then 16 MFU and 4 AOR would be required.

There is then a question of a need for a second tier of combatants for independent tasking. It would be the second tier that would likely provide any persistent presence - with the ability to protect themselves as opposed to serving as an escort.

For me this gets the RAN to:

16 MFU in 4 escort groups
6-8 GP frigates

2 AOR
2 JSS

The rest of the fleet would be:

2 LHD
12 Mine warfare/patrol - 4 fitted for mine warfare, 8 for patrol
In-production Arafura

Regards,

Massive

I highly doubt that the RAN would organize escorts for potential TF's in the manner described, as it would be individual ships and not groups of ships going into maintenance, training and upgrade cycles, as well as pre- and post-deployment ops.

What makes more sense (to me at least...) would be to have a TF centered on a high value asset like an AOR or LHD, or possibly have both in a TF, and then build out the TF escorts from there depending on what vessels are available for deployment and what the perceived risk/threat is. Ideally in potentially hostile waters TF escorts should include a DDG for area air defence, and a pair of FFH's for additional air defence support as well as ASW screening. In time, as the Hunter-class FFG's start replacing the ANZAC-class FFH's, then the likely composition would gradually shift a DDG, an FFG, and an FFH ultimately becoming a DDG and a pair of FFH's. Also, depending on where different vessels are both in terms of location, but also in terms of their training, maintenance and upgrade cycles, surge deployments of additional vessels might be possible. This could enable a TF to be further augmented with another DDG or maybe an FFH or two. OTOH surge deployments could be done to enable the RAN to have multiple groups of vessels deployed in different areas.

I would expect that the RAN would need to significantly increase the number of main fleet units in order to reliably be able to generate escort screens for multiple TF's providing adequate protection against a range of potential threats.

One other consideration is that the RAN might not only need to escort high value vessels, but also be able to sanitize and screen SLOC to/from Australian and international ports. Unfortunately with there currently only being plans for 11 such vessels for the next ~10 years, weight of numbers are just not on the side of the RAN.

 

[Massive]

I highly doubt that the RAN would organize escorts for potential TF's in the manner described, as it would be individual ships and not groups of ships going into maintenance, training and upgrade cycles, as well as pre- and post-deployment ops.

I understand - was more to explain the number.

Used 4 as at some point there was a discussion around "diamond" escort groups of 4 - not sure when but stuck in my mind.

Regards,

Massive

 

[ngatimozart]

The RAN have installed a kill house on HMAS Adelaide for training purposes. It was a temporary blow up one and used an aircraft elevator. Quite innovative actually. They used it in Indonesia when training with Indonesian forces.

Aussies Created A 'Shoot House' On Their Amphibious Assault Ship's Aircraft Elevator

The improvised training area was used to simulate close-quarters combat conditions for training with Indonesian allies.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Volkodav]

The RAN have installed a kill house on HMAS Adelaide for training purposes. It was a temporary blow up one and used an aircraft elevator. Quite innovative actually. They used it in Indonesia when training with Indonesian forces.

Aussies Created A 'Shoot House' On Their Amphibious Assault Ship's Aircraft Elevator

The improvised training area was used to simulate close-quarters combat conditions for training with Indonesian allies.

www.thedrive.com

So cool, they got themselves a bouncing castle!

So much more fun in the army these days.

 

[ngatimozart]

So cool, they got themselves a bouncing castle!

So much more fun in the army these days.

Ah but sailors with rubber blow up things????

 

[Redlands18]

The Blue parts on the Steyr's is that a new system for firing blank rounds? replacing the old red BFA?

 

[Volkodav]

Ah but sailors with rubber blow up things????

Better those than what they used to use....

 

[buffy9]

The Blue parts on the Steyr's is that a new system for firing blank rounds? replacing the old red BFA?

It appears to be an evolution of Blue Bolt. Its not replacing blanks, its just its just a paint tipped round used mostly for urban training. Or its airsoft, I recall there was an EF88 airsoft rifle in development.

Usually you don't have the blue barrel, mags and butt - you normally just replace the bolt group and add two smaller components. In this version the barrel is changed (you can't remove the barrel itself on the EF88, meaning it is a dedicated receiver group), as is some non-changeable components of the butt group (i.e. the mag release). It leads me to think its a dedicated training rifle.

Either way, beats blanks when you're training people to avoid getting hit. There were other components not covered by the article - which hopefully the Indonesians on board got to see for themselves.

Edit:

They do appear to be airsoft rifles.

 

[Redlands18]

It appears to be an evolution of Blue Bolt. Its not replacing blanks, its just its just a paint tipped round used mostly for urban training. Or its airsoft, I recall there was an EF88 airsoft rifle in development.

Usually you don't have the blue barrel, mags and butt - you normally just replace the bolt group and add two smaller components. In this version the barrel is changed (you can't remove the barrel itself on the EF88, meaning it is a dedicated receiver group), as is some non-changeable components of the butt group (i.e. the mag release). It leads me to think its a dedicated training rifle, either for Blue Bolt or for airsoft.

Either way, beats blanks when you're training people to avoid getting hit.

Thanks for your reply, a trg round that does a lot more than go bang and make a flash would definitely be a lot better. Only ever used the original F-88 with the removable barrel and a BFA for Blanks.

 

[Beam]

It appears to be an evolution of Blue Bolt. Its not replacing blanks, its just its just a paint tipped round used mostly for urban training. Or its airsoft, I recall there was an EF88 airsoft rifle in development.

Usually you don't have the blue barrel, mags and butt - you normally just replace the bolt group and add two smaller components. In this version the barrel is changed (you can't remove the barrel itself on the EF88, meaning it is a dedicated receiver group), as is some non-changeable components of the butt group (i.e. the mag release). It leads me to think its a dedicated training rifle.

Either way, beats blanks when you're training people to avoid getting hit. There were other components not covered by the article - which hopefully the Indonesians on board got to see for themselves.

Edit:

They do appear to be airsoft rifles.

the article actually mention"Airsoft Urban Training" -admittedly in the embedded Twitter article.

 

[Takao]

Thanks for taking the time to lay this out Morgo.

My sense is more that there would be a required number of escort groups to escort task forces or convoys - a role for MFUs.

Assuming that an escort group comprises 4 MFU (1AWD, 3 FFG or 2AWD, 2 FFG) + an AOR + say 4 helicopters, and a need for 4 escort groups (1 on task, 1 transiting, 1 replenishing & 1 refitting), then 16 MFU and 4 AOR would be required.

There is then a question of a need for a second tier of combatants for independent tasking. It would be the second tier that would likely provide any persistent presence - with the ability to protect themselves as opposed to serving as an escort.

For me this gets the RAN to:

16 MFU in 4 escort groups
6-8 GP frigates

2 AOR
2 JSS

The rest of the fleet would be:

2 LHD
12 Mine warfare/patrol - 4 fitted for mine warfare, 8 for patrol
In-production Arafura

Regards,

Massive

The maths that we did differed slightly (in scenarios and numbers) but ended up with similar results. We identified that the number of escorts the ARE/ARG would need was probably greater than 1x DDG and 1-2x FFG and closer to 6 - 8 (that provides inner and outer escorts, weighted on threat axis), even up to 12 as a minimum for the full ARG (which may have 4 - 12 transport ships).** We also identified that any reasonable naval threat would have a better submarine capability than the IJN which, when combined with our greater reliance on imports than in 1940s, meant that convoying would likely be required and in turn probably use at least 4 MFU, all of a sudden our need goes up. Obviously those two Task Forces would not necessarily be simultaneous, but those two tasks chewed up hulls bloody quick at higher ends of conflict.

Even at lower ends of conflict, anything that spreads starts chewing hulls quickly. Anti-piracy in the West, medium-level (think Vietnam War level not against China) support in the East, supporting a rescue operation (or any other operation) in the Southern Ocean and all of a sudden the Fleet is over stretched; especially if unfriendly powers start supporting with materiel, intelligence or covert operations and it gets messy. Also note that some of these operations which may have been done by a single ship in the past (especially our Indian Ocean operations through 00's) may need to be done in pairs at least as the capability of the threat increases. If Hezbollah can have C-802s 15 years ago then who knows what can be supplied in 2025.

Regardless of the final decision(s) that may have been made, when, having done the maths, you have Army and RAAF peeps arguing for a massive increase to the FFG and DDG population (with the appropriate increases in all FIC), you know that it's serious.

** this came out later than our analysis, but provides some open source discussions on what an actual escort bill looks like for high value assets: Escorts